Skip to main content

Full text of "The works of John Owen"

See other formats




JOHN    OWEN,    D.D. 





T.  &  T.  CLARK,  38,  GEORGE  STREET. 



o  a 




















Epistle  Dedicatory, 

Preface  to  the  Reader, 

Mr  Biddle's  Preface  to  his  Catechism. 

Mr  Biddle's  Preface  briefly  examined 


I.— Mr  Biddle's  first  chapter  examined— Of  the  Scriptures, 
II.— Of  the  nature  of  God, 

III-— Of  the  shape  and  bodily  visible  figure  of  God,     . 
IV.— Of  the  attribution  of  passions  and  affections,  anger,  fear,  repentance, 

unto  God— In  what  sense  it  is  done  in  the  Scripture, 
V. — Of  God's  prescience  or  foreknowledge, 

VI.— Of  the  creation,  and  condition  of  man  before  and  after  the  fall, 
VII.— Of  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  on  what  account  he  is  the  Son  of  God, 
VIII.— An  entrance  into  the  examination  of  the  Racovian  Catechism  in  the 
business  of  the  deity  of  Christ— Their  arguments  against  it  an 
swered  ;  and  testimonies  of  the  eternity  of  Christ  vindicated, 
IX.— The  pre-eternity  of  Christ  farther  evinced— Sundry  texts  of  Scripture 

vindicated,          .... 
X.— Of  the  names  of  God  given  unto  Christ,  . 

XI- — Of  the  work  of  creation  assigned  to  Jesus  Christ,  etc.— The  confirmation 
of  his  eternal  deity  from  thence,         ..... 
XII.— All-ruling  and  disposing  providence  assigned  unto  Christ,  and  his 
eternal  Godhead  thence  farther  confirmed,  with  other  testimonies 
thereof,    ..... 

HI — Of  the  incarnation  of  Christ,  and  his  pre-existence  thereunto, 
XIV.— Sundry  other  testimonies  given  to  the  deity  of  Christ  vindicated, 
XV.— Of  the  Holy  Ghost,  his  deity,  graces,  and  operations, 

XVI.— Of  salvation  by  Christ, 

XVII.— Of  the  mediation  of  Christ 

XVIII.— Of  Christ's  prophetical  office,        .... 
XIX.— Of  the  kingly  office  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  worship  that  is  ascribed 

and  due  to  him,  ..... 

XX.— Of  the  priestly  office  of  Christ— How  he  was  a  priest— When  he  en 
tered  on  his  office— And  how  he  dischargeth  it, 

XXI — Of  the  death  of  Christ,  the  causes,  ends,  and  fruits  thereof,  with  an 
entrance  into  the  doctrine  of  his  satisfaction  thereby, 








CHAP.  f    PAGlt 

XXII.— The  several  considerations  of  the  death  of  Christ  as  to  the  expiation  of 
our  sins  thereby,  and  the  satisfaction  made  therein— First,  Of  it  as 
a  price;  secondly,  As  a  sacrifice,  .  •  419 

XXIII.— Of  the  death  of  Christ  as  it  was  a  punishment,  and  the  satisfaction 

made  thereby,     ....  .  .  .  •        433 

XXIV.— Some  particular  testimonies  evincing  the  death  of  Christ  to  be  a  pun 
ishment,  properly  so  called,       .  .  •  •  •        443 
XX  V.— A  digression  concerning  the  53d  chapter  of  Isaiah,  and  the  vindication 

of  it  from  the  perverse  interpretation  of  HUGO  GROTIUS,      .  .        455 

XXVI.— Of  the  matter  of  the  punishment  that  Christ  underwent,  or  what  he 

suffered,  ........       485 

XXVII.— Of  the  covenant  between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  the  ground  and  foun 
dation  of  this  dispensation  of  Christ's  being  punished  for  us  and  in 
our  stead,  ....  ...        496 

XXVIII.— Of  redemption  by  the  death  of  Christ  as  it  was  a  price  or  ransom,        .        508 
XXIX.— Of  reconciliation  by  the  death  of  Christ  as  it  is  a  sacrifice,         .  .531 

XXX.— The  satisfaction  of  Christ,  on  the  consideration  of  his  death  being  a 
punishment,  farther  evinced,  and  vindicated  from  the  exceptions  of 

Smalcius, .542 

XXXI.— Of  election  and  universal  grace— Of  the  resurrection  of  Christ  from  the 

dead,        •  .  •  •...'.,«  •  v          •  •       551 

XXXII.— Of  justification  and  faith,  .......       561 

XXXIIL— Of  keeping  the  commandments  of  God,  and  of  perfection  of  obedience 

— How  attainable  in  this  life,  ......        564 

XXXI V.— Of  prayer ;  and  whether  Christ  prescribed  a  form  of  prayer  to  be  used 
by  believers ;  and  of  praying  unto  him  and  in  his  name  under  the 
old  testament,     ........        577 

XXXV.— Of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  and  the  state  of  the  wicked  at  the  last 

day,         . .581 

Of  the  Death  of  Christ,  and  of  Justification,  .  .  .  .591 


PREFATORY  NOTE  BY  THE  EDITOR,      .          .          .          .          .          .  .       618 

A  Second  Consideration  of  the  Annotations  of  Hugo  Grotius,        .           .  .        619 

Epistles  of  Grotius  to  Crellius,           .           .  633 



















VTJ    .*%.(  irifrturyi,  £«»  T»  ot<reSii]-it  rut  xxTX 
)i  A<*£»if  ypoupS*. — CYRIL.  HIEROS.,  Catech.  4. 

OXFORD:  1655. 



Ix  1654  the  commands  of  the  Council  of  State  were  laid  upon  Owen  to  undertake  the 
refutation  of  Socinianism,  which  about  that  time  was  introduced  into  England,  and  in 
the  following  year  the  "Vindicise  Evangelicse"  appeared; — a  work  of  unequal  merit,  and 
in  many  parts  obsolete  under  the  new  light  shed  on  the  subject  by  more  recent  discus 
sions,  but  in  the  main  so  solid  as  never  to  have  been  answered  ;  containing  much  that 
modern  polemics  have  by  no  means  superseded ;  full  of  information  as  to  the  early  his 
tory  of  Socinianism,  nowhere  else  to  be  gleaned  in  the  theological  literature  of  Britain ; 
and  altogether  of  such  substantial  excellence  as  to  render  its  author's  name  worthy  of 
its  place  as  historically  the  first  among  that  splendid  catena  of  divines, — Bull,  Water- 
land,  Horsley,  Hagee,  Fuller,  Pye  Smith,  and  Wardlaw, — by  whom  the  cardinal  doc 
trines  of  Christ's  person,  Godhead,  and  work,  have  been  placed  on  a  basis  of  unshaken 
demonstration  from  the  Word  of  God. 

In  the  execution  of  his  task,  our  author  resolved  to  meet  three  parties  whose  writ 
ings  tended  to  unsettle  the  general  belief  of  the  Church  of  Christ  respecting  these  doc 
trines  ; — Biddle,  whose  publications,  devoted  to  the  propagation  of  Unitarian  sentiments, 
had  drawn  the  attention  and  excited  the  fears  of  the  Council ;  the  Polish  Socinians,  as 
represented  by  the  Bacovian  Catechism ;  and  Hugo  Grotius,  whose  Socinianizing  com 
ments  on  Scripture  have  left  his  orthodoxy  on  the  vital  truths  of  our  Lord's  divinity 
and  satisfaction  under  a  cloud  of  suspicion. 

JOHN  BIDDLE,  the  father  of  English  Socinianism,  was  born  in  1616,  at  Wotton-under- 
Edge.  Having  made  considerable  proficiency  at  the  grammar  school  of  his  native  town, 
he  received  from  Lord  Berkeley  an  exhibition  of  £10,  was  admitted  a  student  of  Mag 
dalen  Hall,  Oxford,  and  took  his  degree  of  A.M.  in  1641.  While  occupied  afterwards 
as  a  teacher  in  the  city  of  Gloucester,  he  began  to  divulge  his  errors  by  the  private 
circulation  of  a  small  tract,  under  the  title,  "  Twelve  Arguments  drawn  out  of  the 
Scriptures,  wherein  the  commonly  received  opinion  touching  the  Deity  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  fully  Refuted."  He  was  summoned  from  the  county  jail,  to  which  the  magistrates 
had  committed  him,  to  answer  for  his  errors  before  Parliament ;  and,  on  the  report  of  a 
committee  respecting  his  case,  he  was  left  under  the  custody  of  an  officer  of  the  House 
for  five  years.  During  this  period  he  published  successively  his  "  Twelve  Arguments," 
"  A  Confession  of  Faith  concerning  the  Holy  Trinity,"  and  "  The  Testimonies  of  Ire- 
naeus,  etc.,  concerning  one  God  and  the  Persons  of  the  Holy  Trinity."  By  an  atrocious 
act  passed  in  1648,  in  which  it  was  made  a  capital  offence  to  publish  against  the  being 
and  perfections  of  God,  the  deity  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Spirit,  and  similar  doctrines, 
Biddle  had  well-nigh  fallen  a  martyr  to  his  opinions.  The  act,  however,  never  came 
into  operation.  He  was  even  in  more  serious  peril  after  the  Long  Parliament  was  dis 
solved  and  its  opponents  were  in  power ;  for  he  actually  stood  a  trial  for  his  life  in 
1655.  Cromwell  dexterously  overruled  these  proceedings  by  the  summary  banishment  of 
Biddle  to  Star  Castle,  in  one  of  the  Scilly  Islands.  He  recovered  his  freedom  only  to  be 
cast  into  prison  anew  on  the  Restoration ;  and  having  caught  some  distemper  common 
in  the  jails  of  that  time,  he  died  a  prisoner  in  1662.  He  was  a  man  of  considerable 
attainments  as  a  scholar.  "Except  his  opinions,"  says  Anthony  Wood,  "  there  was  little 
or  nothing  blameworthy  in  him;"  and  his  admirer,  Toulmin,  pronounces  him  "  a  pious, 
holy,  and  humble  man."  His  piety  must  have  been  of  a  singular  type,  if  we  consider 
his  views  of  the  divine  nature, — views  replete  with  the  most  profane  and  revolting 
materialism,  at  that  time  without  a  parallel  in  our  literature,  and  calculated  to  shock 
the  best  feelings  and  holiest  convictions  of  his  countrymen,  while  the  knowledge  of 
them  inspired  continental  divines  with  alarm,  as  if  England  were  fast  lapsing  into  the 
most  impious  heresies.  It  can  only  be  from  a  desire  that  their  cause  may  have  the 
honour  of  having  stood,  in  one  instance  at  least,  the  test  of  civil  penalties  under  British 


rule,  that  Socinians,  who  pride  themselves  on  their  views  of  the  spirituality  of  God, 
claim  affinity  with  poor  Biddle. 

Nicolas  Estwick  replied  to  him,  in  an  "  Examination  of  his  Confession  of  Faith; 
Poole  in  his  " Plea  for  the  Godhead  of  the  Holy  Ghost;"  and  Francis  Cheynel,  in  hia 
"  Divine  Trinunity  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost."     Biddle  held  to  his  errors, 
and  produced  in  1654  his  "Twofold  Catechism,"  etc.;  which  the  following  work  of 
Owen  is  designed  to  review  and  confute. 

The  RACOVIAN  CATECHISM  derives  its  name  from  the  Polish  city  of  Rakau,  the  chief 
seat  of  the  Polish  Unitarians.  According  to  Sandius  (Bib.  Antitrin.  p.  44),  the  first 
Catechism  of  this  name  was  the  work  of  Gregory  Paul;  and  when  Faustus  Socinus  and 
Peter  Statorius,  junior,  were  prevented  by  death  from  completing  their  revision  of  it,  ac 
cording  to  an  appointment  laid  upon  them  by  their  brethren  of  the  same  creed,  the  task 
was  devolved  on  Valentine  Smalcius,  Jerome  Moscorovius,  and  John  Volkelius.  The  first 
part  of  this  statement  seems  to  want  authentication,  and  the  original  of  the  Catechism 
has  been  traced  to  a  confession  of  faith  prepared  by  George  Schomann.  Remodelled 
by  the  committee  mentioned  above,  it  appeared  in  1605,  and  was  the  first  edition  of  the 
Racovian  Catechism.  It  was  translated  into  German  in  1608.  A  reprint  of  the  origi 
nal  work  in  London  attracted  the  notice  of  Parliament,  and  on  the  2d  of  April  1652,  the 
Sheriffs  of  London  and  of  Middlesex  were  ordered  to  seize  and  burn  all  the  copies  of  it 
at  the  London  Exchange  and  at  Palace  Yard,  Westminster.  An  English  translation  of 
it,  prepared  most  probably  by  Biddle,  issued  from  the  Amsterdam  press  in  1652.  The 
most  correct  and  valuable  edition  of  the  Catechism,  supplying  the  latest  views  of  the 
old  Socinian  theology  in  Poland,  is  the  quarto  edition  of  1680,  printed  at  Amsterdam 
by  Christopher  Pezold.  Modern  Socinianism  has  added  nothing  to  the  plausibility  with 
which  the  system  is  invested  in  this  Catechism;  and  the  refutation  of  its  insidious 
principles  by  Owen  was  a  service  to  the  cause  of  scriptural  truth,  from  which  Chris 
tianity  is  yet  reaping,  and  for  generations  will  continue  to  reap,  the  highest  benefit. 

HUGO  GEOTIUS  is  a  name  which  reminds  us  of  a  sadly  chequered  history,  diversified 
gifts  of  the  highest  order,  and  a  strangely  piebald  and  ambiguous  creed.  We  need  not 
allude  to  the  well-known  incidents  of  his  eventful  career, — the  high  offices  he  held  in  his 
native  country,  his  connection  with  the  disputes  between  the  Gomarists  and  the  Re 
monstrants,  the  retribution  under  which  he  became  the  victim  of  that  appeal  to  arms 
and  force  which  his  own  party  beyond  all  question  had  begun,  his  escape  from  prison 
through  the  ingenious  device  of  his  wife,  his  residence  at  Paris,  and  death  at  Rostock 
in  1645.  He  had  published  a  work,  "De  Satisfactione  Christi,"  designed  to  refute  the 
errors  of  Socinianism,  but  towards  the  close  of  his  life  he  prepared  a  series  of  anno 
tations  on  Scripture,  respecting  which  it  was  the  charge  of  Owen  that  "  he  left  but  one 
place  giving  testimony  clearly  to  the  deity  of  Christ."  Dr  Hammond  took  him  to  task 
for  misrepresenting  the  Dutch  statesman.  Owen,  both  in  the  "  Vindicise  Evangelicae" 
and  in  his  "Review  of  the  Annotations,"  advances  overwhelming  evidence  in  support  of  his 
assertion.  Whether  we  are  to  account  it  morbid  candour  or  indifference  to  the  great 
truths  of  the  gospel,  Grotius  assuredly  emitted  a  most  uncertain  sound  respecting  them. 
He  is  claimed  alike  by  Socinians,  Arminians,  and  Papists.  The  learned  Jesuit  Peta- 
vius  said  prayers  for  the  repose  of  his  soul ;  and  Bossuet  considered  him  so  near  the 
truth  that  "it  was  wonderful  he  did  not  take  the  last  step," — that  is,  connect  himself 
with  the  Church  of  Rome, — while  he  affirms,  at  the  same  time,  that  "  he  stole  from  the 
Church  her  most  powerful  proofs  of  the  divinity  of  Christ."  Menage  wrote  a  witty 
epigram,  to  the  effect  that  as  many  sects  claimed  the  religion  of  Grotius  as  towns  con 
tended  for  the  honour  of  being  the  birth-place  of  Homer.  Who  would  not  wish  to 
rank  among  the  abettors  of  his  own  tenets  a  statesman  of  such  vast  attainments  and 
versatile  ability  ?  It  is  enough,  however,  to  make  us  sympathize  with  Owen,  who  only 
followed  the  example  of  all  the  Protestant  divines  of  Charenton,  in  repudiating  fellow 
ship  with  Grotius,  when  we  peruse  the  epistles  of  the  latter  to  the  Socinian  Crellius.  See 
page  638.  Is  the  difference  between  those  who  hold  and  those  who  deny  the  Godhead 
of  Christ  to  be  made  matter  of  contemptuous  aposiopesis,  and  to  be  spoken  of  as 
"  quantiUa  causa  ? " — ED. 









J.  O. 




OF  this  second  address  unto  you  in  this  kind,  whereuntol  am  encouraged  by  your 
fair  and  candid  reception  of  my  former,  I  desire  you  would  be  pleased  to  take  the 
ensuing  account.  It  is  now,  as  I  remember,  about  a  year  ago  since  one  Mr 
Biddle  (formerly  a  master  of  arts  of  this  university,  by  which  title  he  still  owns 
himself)  published  two  little  Catechisms,  as  he  calls  them,  wherein,  under  sundry 
specious  pleas  and  pretences,  which  you  will  find  discussed  in  the  ensuing  trea 
tise,  he  endeavours  to  insinuate  subtilely  into  the  minds  of  unstable  and  unlearned 
men  the  whole  substance  of  the  Socinian  religion.  The  man  is  a  person  whom, 
to  my  knowledge,  I  never  saw,  nor  have  been  at  all  curious  to  inquire  after  the 
place  of  his  habitation  or  course  of  his  life.  His  opposition  some  years  since  to 
the  deity  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  now  to  that  of  the  Father  and  Son  also,  is  all  that 
he  is  known  to  me  by.  It  is  not  with  his  person  that  I  have  any  contest;  he 
stands  or  falls  to  his  own  master.  His  arguments  against  the  deity  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  were  some  while  since  answered  by  Cloppenburgh,  then  professor  of  divinity 
at  Franeker,  in  Friesland,  since  at  rest  in  the  Lord ;  and,  as  I  have  heard,  by  one 
in  English.  His  Catechisms  also  are  gone  over  the  seas;  whereof  farther  mention 
must  afterward  be  made.  At  their  first  publishing,  complaint  being  given  in  by 
some  worthy  persons  to  the  Honourable  Council  against  them,  as  abusive  to  the 
majesty  and  authority  of  the  word  of  God,  and  destructive  to  many  important 
truths  of  the  gospel  (which  was  done  without  any  knowledge  of  mine),  they  were 
pleased  to  send  for  me,  and  to  require  of  me  the  performance  of  that  work  which 
is  here  presented  unto  you.  Being  surprised  with  their  request,  I  laboured  to 
excuse  myself  to  the  utmost,  on  the  account  of  my  many  employments  in  the 
university  and  elsewhere,  with  other  reasons  of  the  like  nature,  which  to  my 
thoughts  did  then  occur.  Not  prevailing  with  them,  they  persisting  in  their 
command,  1  looked  on  it  as  a  call  from  God  to  plead  for  his  violated  truth ;  which, 
by  his  assistance,  and  according  as  I  had  opportunity,  I  was  in  general  alway 
resolved  to  do.  Having,  indeed,  but  newly  taken  off  my  hand  from  the  plough 
of  a  peculiar  controversy  about  the  perseverance  of  the  saints,  in  the  following 
whereof  I  was  somewhat  tired,  the  entrance  into  the  work  was  irksome  and  bur 
densome  unto  me.  After  some  progress  made,  finding  the  searching  into  and  dis 
cussing  of  the  important  truths  opposed  of  very  good  use  to  myself,  I  have  been 
carried  through  the  whole  (according  as  I  could  break  off  my  daily  pressing  occa 
sions  to  attend  unto  it)  with  much  cheerfulness  and  alacrity  of  mind.  And  this 
was  the  reason  why,  finding  Mr  Biddle  came  short  of  giving  a  fair  occasion  to  the 
full  vindication  of  many  heads  of  religion  by  him  oppugned,  I  have  called  in  to  his 
assistance  and  society  one  of  his  great  masters,  namely,  Valentinus  Smalcius,  and 
his  Catechism  (commonly  called  the  Racovian),  with  the  expositions  of  the  places 


of  Scripture  contended  about  by  the  learned  Grotius,  as  also,  on  several  occasions, 
the  arguments  and  answers  of  most  of  the  chief  propugners  of  Mr  Biddle's  religion. 
Now,  besides  your  interest  in  the  truths  pleaded  for,  there  are  other  considera 
tions  also  inducing  me  to  a  persuasion  that  this  endeavour  of  mine  will  not  be 
unacceptable  unto  you.  Mr  Biddle's  Catechisms,  as  I  said,  being  carried  over  and 
dispersed  in  sundry  places  of  the  United  Provinces,  the  professors  of  their  academies 
(who  have  all  generally  learned  the  English  tongue,  to  enable  them  for  the  under 
standing  of  the  treatises  of  divinity  in  all  kinds  written  therein,  which  they  begin 
to  make  use  of  to  the  purpose)  cry  out  against  them,  and  professedly  undertake 
the  refutation  thereof.  Now,  certainly  it  cannot  be  for  our  advantage  in  point 
of  repute  amongst  them,  that  they  (who  are  yet  glad  of  the  occasion)  should  be 
enforced  to  undertake  the  confutation  of  a  book  written  by  one  who  styles  himself 
a  master  of  arts  of  this  university  (which  they  also  take  notice  of),  wherein  they 
are  so  little  concerned,  the  poison  of  it  being  shut  up  from  then-  people  under  the 
safe  custody  of  an  unknown  tongue.  Nicolaus  Arnoldus,  the  professor  of  divi 
nity  at  Franeker,  gives  an  account  of  this  book,  as  the  most  subtile  insinuation  of 
the  Socinian  religion  that  ever  was  attempted,  and  promises  a  confutation  of  it. 

Maresius,  professor  at  Groningen,  a  man  well  known  by  his  works  published, 
goes  farther,  and,  on  the  account  of  these  Catechisms,  charges  the  whole  nation  and 
the  governors  of  it  with  Socinianism  ;  and,  according  to  the  manner  of  the  man, 
raises  a  fearful  outcry,  affirming  that  that  heresy  hath  fixed  its  metropolitical  seat 
here  in  England,  and  is  here  openly  professed,  as  the  head  sect  in  the  nation,  dis 
playing  openly  the  banners  of  its  iniquity  :  all  which  he  confirms  by  instancing  in 
this  book  of  a  master  of  arts  of  the  university  of  Oxford.1  Of  his  rashness  in 
censuring,  and  his  extreme  ignorance  of  the  state  of  affairs  here  amongst  us,  which 
yet  he  undertakes  to  relate,  judge,  and  condemn,  I  have  given  him  an  account, 
in  a  private  letter  to  himself. 

Certainly,  though  we  deserved  to  have  these  reproaches  cast  upon  us,  yet  of  all 
men  in  the  world  those  who  live  under  the  protection  and  upon  the  allowance  of 
the  United  Provinces  are  most  unmeet  to  manage  them  ;  their  incompetency  in 
sundry  respects  for  this  service  is  known  to  all.  However,  it  cannot  be  denied 
but  that,  even  on  this  account  (that  it  may  appear  that  we  are,  as  free  from  the 
guilt  of  the  calumnious  insinuations  of  Maresius,  so  in  no  need  of  the  assistance  of 
Arnoldus  for  the  confutation  of  any  one  arising  among  ourselves  speaking  perverse 
things  to  draw  disciples  after  him),  an  answer  from  some  in  this  place  unto  those 
Catechisms  was  sufficiently  necessary.  That  it  is  by  Providence  fallen  upon  the 
hand  of  one  more  unmeet  than  many  others  in  this  place  for  the  performance  of 
this  work  and  duty,  I  doubt  not  but  you  will  be  contented  withal;  and  I  am  bold  to 
hope  that  neither  the  truth  nor  your  own  esteem  will  too  much  suffer  by  my  en 
gagement  herein.  Yea  (give  me  leave  to  speak  it),  I  have  assumed  the  confidence 
to  aim  at  the  handling  of  the  whole  body  of  the  Socinian  religion,  in  such  a  way 
and  manner  as  that  those  who  are  most  knowing  and  exercised  in  these  contro 
versies  may  find  that  which  they  will  not  altogether  despise,  and  younger  students 

i  "  Prodiit  hoc  anno  in  Anglia,  authore  Johanne  Bidello,  artium  magistro,  pneumatomacho,  duplex 
Catechesis  Scripturaria,  Anglico  idiomate  typis  evulgata.qua  sub  nomine  religioms  Christianas  purum 

n      vder  velle      - 

ocnana    a    eors,  u 
trahere  post  dies  caniculares,  cum  Deo  est  animus."—  Nicol.  Arnold,  prsef  ad  lector. 

"  Necessarium  est  hoc  tristi  tempore,  quo  Sociniana  pestis,  quam  baud  immento  dixeris  omnis  im- 
pietatis  ixpixotot,  videtur  nunc  in  vicina  Anglia  sedem  sibi  metropolitanam  flxisse,  nisi  quod  isthie 
facile  admittat  et  bella  cruenta,  et  judicia  capitalia  severissima,  sub  quorum  umbone  crevit.  Nam 
inter  varias  hrereses,  quibusfelix  ilia  quondam  insula  et  orthodoxies  tenacissima  hodie  conspurcatur, 
tantum  eminet  Socinianismus,  quantum  'lenta  solent  inter  viburna  Cupressi;'  nee  enim  amplius  ibi 
horrenda  sua  mysteria  mussitat  in  angulis,  sed  sub  dio  explicat  omnia  vexilla  suas  iniquitatis  :  non 
lonuor  incomperta,  benevole  lector.  Modo  enim  ex  Anglia  allatus  est  Anglica  lingua  conscriptus 
Catechismus  duplex,  major  et  minor,  Londini  publice  excusus,  hoc  anno  1654,  apud  Jac.  Coterell,  et 
Kich.  Moone,  etc.,  authore  Johanne  Bidello,  magistro  artium  Oxoniensi,  etc."—  Sam.  Marea.  Hjd.  Socin. 
Eefut.  torn.  ii.  prsefat.  ad  lect. 


that  whereby  they  may  profit.  To  this  end  I  have  added  the  Racovian  Catechism, 
as  I  said  before,  to  Mr  Biddle's;  which  as  I  was  urged  to  do  by  many  worthy 
persons  in  this  university,  so  I  was  no  way  discouraged  in  the  publishing  of  my 
answer  thereunto  by  the  view  I  took  of  Arnoldus'  discourse  to  the  same  purpose, 
and  that  for  such  reasons  as  I  shall  not  express,  but  leave  the  whole  to  the  judg 
ment  of  the  reader. 

From  thence  whence  in  the  thoughts  of  some  I  am  most  likely  to  suffer,  as  to 
my  own  resolves,  I  am  most  secure.  It  is  in  meddling  with  Grotius'  Annotations, 
and  calling  into  question  what  hath  been  delivered  by  such  a  giant  in  all  kinds  of 
literature.  Since  my  engagement  in  this  business,  and  when  I  had  well-nigh 
finished  the  vindication  of  the  texts  of  Scripture  commonly  pleaded  for  the  demon 
stration  of  the  deity  of  Christ  from  the  exceptions  put  in  to  their  testimonies  by 
the  Racovian  Catechism,  I  had  the  sight  of  Dr  Hammond's  apology  for  him,  in 
his  vindication  of  his  dissertations  about  episcopacy  from  my  occasional  animad 
versions,  published  in  the  preface  of  my  book  of  the  Perseverance  of  the  Saints. 
Of  that  whole  treatise  I  shall  elsewhere  give  an  account.  My  defensative,  as  to 
my  dealing  with  Grotius'  Annotations,  is  suited  to  what  the  doctor  pleads  in  his 
behalf,  which  occasions  this  mention  thereof: — 

"  This  very  pious,  learned,  judicious  man,"  he  tells  us,  "  hath  fallen  under  some 
harsh  censures  of  late,  especially  upon  the  account  of  Socinianism  and  Popery." 
That  is,  not  as  though  he  would  reconcile  these  extremes,  but  being  in  doctrinals 
a  Socinian,  he  yet  closed  in  many  things  with  the  Roman  interest;  as  I  no  way 
doubt  but  thousands  of  the  same  persuasion  with  the  Socinians  as  to  the  person 
and  offices  of  Christ  do  live  in  the  outward  communion  of  that  church  (as  they 
call  it)  to  this  day;  of  which  supposal  I  am  not  without  considerable  grounds  and 
eminent  instances  for  its  confirmation.  This,  I  say,  is  their  charge  upon  him. 
For  his  being  a  Socinian,  he  tells  us,  "  Three  things  are  made  use  of  to  beget 
a  jealousy  in  the  minds  of  men  of  his  inclinations  that  way : — 1.  Some  parcels  of 
a  letter  of  his  to  Crellius ;  2.  Some  relations  of  what  passed  from  him  at  his 
death;  3.  Some  passages  in  his  Annotations."  It  is  this  last  alone  wherein  I  am 
concerned;  and  what  I  have  to  speak  to  them,  I  desire  may  be  measured  and 
weighed  by  what  I  do  premise.  It  is  not  that  I  do  entertain  in  myself  any  hard 
thoughts,  or  that  I  would  beget  in  others  any  evil  surmises,  of  the  eternal  condi 
tion  of  that  man  that  I  speak  what  I  do.  What  am  I  that  I  should  judge  another 
man's  servant?  He  is  fallen  to  his  own  master.  I  am  very  slow  to  judge  of  men's 
acceptation  with  God  by  the  apprehension  of  their  understandings.  This  only  I 
know,  that  be  men  of  what  religion  soever  that  is  professed  in  the  world,  if  they 
are  drunkards,  proud,  boasters,  etc.,  hypocrites,  haters  of  good  men,  persecutors 
and  revilers  of  them,  yea,  if  they  be  not  regenerate  and  born  of  God,  united  to  the 
head,  Christ  Jesus,  by  the  same  Spirit  that  is  in  him,  they  shall  never  see  God. 

But  for  the  passages  in  his  Annotations,  the  substance  of  the  doctor's  plea  is, 
"  That  the  passages  intimated  are  in  his  posthuma ;  that  he  intended  not  to  publish 
them ;  that  they  might  be  of  things  he  observed,  but  thought  farther  to  consider ;" 
and  an  instance  is  given  in  that  of  Col.  i.  16,  which  he  interprets  contrary  to  what 
he  urged  it  for,  John  i.  1-3.  But  granting  what  is  affirmed  as  to  matter  of  fact 
about  his  Collections  (though  the  preface  to  the  last  part  of  his  Annotations  will 
not  allow  it  to  be  true'),  I  must  needs  abide  in  my  dissatisfaction  as  to  these  Anno- 
tations,  and  of  my  resolves  in  these  thoughts  give  the  doctor  this  account  Of  the  religion  there  are  two  main  parts;  the  first  is  Photinianism,  the  latter 
1  elagiamsm,— the  first  concerning  the  person,  the  other  the  grace  of  Christ  Let 
us  take  an  eminent  instance  out  of  either  of  these  heads:  out  of  the  first  their  deny 
ing  Christ  to  be  God  by  nature;  out  of  the  latter,  their  denial  of  his  satisfaction. 



For  the  first,  I  must  needs  tell  the  apologist,  that  of  all  the  texts  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  Old,  whereby  the  deity  of  Christ  is  usually  confirmed,  and  where 
it  is  evidently  testified  unto,  he  hath  not  left  any  more  than  one,  that  I  have  ob 
served,  if  one,  speaking  any  thing  clearly  to  that  purpose.  I  say,  if  one,  for  that 
he  speaks  not  home  to  the  business  in  hand  on  John  i.  I  shall  elsewhere  give  an 
account;  perhaps  some  one  or  two  more  may  be  interpreted  according  to  the  ana 
logy  of  that.  I  speak  not  of  his  Annotations  on  the  Epistles,  but  on  the  whole 
Bible  throughout,  wherein  his  expositions  given  do,  for  the  most  part,  fall  in  with 
those  of  the  Socinians,  and  oftentimes  consist  in  the  very  words  of  Socinus  and 
Smalcius,  and  alway  do  the  same  things  with  them,  as  to  any  notice  of  the  deity 
of  Christ  in  them.  So  that  I  marvel  the  learned  doctor  should  fix  upon  one  par 
ticular  instance,  as  though  that  one  place  alone  were  corrupted  by  him,  when 
there  is  not  one  (or  but  one)  that  is  not  wrested,  perverted,  and  corrupted,  to  the 
same  purpose.  For  the  full  conviction  of  the  truth  hereof,  I  refer  the  reader  to 
the  ensuing  considerations  of  his  interpretations  of  the  places  themselves.  The 
condition  of  these  famous  Annotations  as  to  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  is  the  same. 
Not  one  text  of  the  whole  Scripture,  wherein  testimony  is  given  to  that  sacred 
truth,  which  is  not  wrested  to  another  sense,  or  at  least  the  doctrine  in  it  con 
cealed  and  obscured  by  them.  I  do  not  speak  this  with  the  least  intention  to  cast 
upon  him  the  reproach  of  a  Socinian ;  1  judge  not  his  person.  His  books  are 
published  to  be  considered  and  judged.  Erasmus,  I  know,  made  way  for  him  in 
most  of  his  expositions  about  the  deity  of  Christ;  but  what  repute  he  hath  there 
by  obtained  among  all  that  honour  the  eternal  Godhead  of  the  Son  of  God,  let 
Bellarmine,  on  the  one  hand,  and  Beza,  on  the  other,  evince.  And  as  I  will  by 
no  means  maintain  or  urge  against  Grotius  any  of  the  miscarriages  in  religion 
which  the  answerer  of  my  animadversions  undertakes  to  vindicate  him  from,  nor 
do  I  desire  to  fight  with  the  dust  and  ashes  of  men;  yet  what  I  have  said  is,  if 
not  necessary  to  return  to  the  apologist,  yet  of  tendency,  I  hope,  to  the  satisfaction 
of  others,  who  may  inquire  after  the  reason  of  my  calling  the  Annotations  of  the 
learned  man  to  an  account  in  this  discourse.  Shall  any  one  take  liberty  to  pluck 
down  the  pillars  of  our  faith,  and  weaken  the  grounds  of  our  assurance  concern 
ing  the  person  and  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  shall  not  we  have  the  bold 
ness  to  call  him  to  an  account  for  so  sacrilegious  an  attempt?  With  those,  then, 
who  love  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  sincerity,  I  expect  no  blame  or  reproach  for 
what  I  have  endeavoured  in  this  kind;  yea,  that  my  good  will  shall  find  acceptance 
with  them,  especially  if  it  shall  occasion  any  of  greater  leisure  and  abilities  farther 
and  professedly  to  remark  more  of  the  corruptions  of  those  Annotations,  I  have 
good  ground  of  expectation.  The  truth  is,  notwithstanding  their  pompous  show 
and  appearance — few  of  his  quotations  (which  was  the  manner  of  the  man)  being 
at  all  to  his  purpose,1 — it  will  be  found  no  difficult  matter  to  discuss  his  assertions 
and  dissipate  his  conjectures. 

For  his  being  a  Papist,  I  have  not  much  to  say.  Let  his  epistles  (published  by 
his  friends)  written  to  Dionysius  Petavius  the  Jesuit  be  perused,  and  you  will 
see  the  character  which  of  himself  he  gives,2  as  also  what  in  sundry  writings  he 
ascribes  to  the  pope. 

What  I  have  performed,  through  the  good  hand  of  God  in  the  whole,  is  humbly 
submitted  to  your  judgment.  You  know,  all  of  you,  with  what  weight  of  busi 
ness  and  employment  I  am  pressed,  what  is  the  constant  work  that  in  this  place 

1  "  Grotius,  in  lib.  v.  De  Veritat.  Relig.  Christian,  in  notis  R.  Sel.  Aben  Ezra  et  Onkelos  adducit. 
Sed  alienis  oculis  hie  vidit,  aut  aliena  fide  retulit  (forte  authoribus  illis  aut  non  intellectis,  aut  propter 
occupationes  non  inspectis),  aut  animositati  et  authoritati  in  citandis  authoribus,  et  referendis  dictis 
aut  factis,  ut  ipsi  hoc  usui  venlebat,  nimium  in  scriptis  theologicis  indulserit." — Voet.  Disput.  de  Ad- 
Tent.  Messi. 

J  "  Reverende  domine,  saepe  tibi  molestus  esse  cogor Sumpsi  hanc  ultimam  operam,  mea 

ante  hue  dicta  et  famain  quoque  a  ministris  allatratam  tuendi :  in  eo  scripto  si  quid  est,  aut  Catholicis 
Sententiis  discongruens,  aut  cseteroqui  a  veritate  alienum,  de  eo  aba  te  viro  eruditissimo,"  etc.,  "ciijus 
judicium  plurimi  facio  moneri  percupio."— Epist.  Grot,  ad  Dionys.  Petav.  Ep.  204. 


is  incumbent  on  me,  how  many  and  how  urgent  my  avocations  are;  the  considera 
tion  whereof  cannot  but  prevail  for  a  pardon  of  that  want  of  exactness  which  per- 
haps  in  sundry  particulars  will  appear  unto  you.  With  those  who  are  neither 
willing  nor  ahle  to  do  any  thing  in  this  kind  themselves,  and  yet  make  it  their 
business  to  despise  what  is  done  by  others,  I  shall  very  little  trouble  myself.  That 
which  seems,  in  relation  hereunto,  to  call  for  an  apology,  is  my  engagement  into 
this  work,  wherein  I  was  not  particularly  concerned,  suffering  in  the  meantime 
some  treatises  against  me  to  lie  unanswered.  Dr  Hammond's  answer  to  my  ani 
madversions  on  his  dissertations  about  episcopacy,  Mr  Baxter's  objections  against 
somewhat  written  about  the  death  of  Christ,  and  a  book  of  one  Mr  Home  against 
my  treatise  about  universal  redemption,  are  all  the  instances  that  I  know  of  which 
in  this  kind  may  be  given.  To  all  that  candidly  take  notice  of  these  things,  my 
defence  is  at  hand.  I  do  not  know  that  I  am  more  obliged  to  answer  a  treatise 
written  against  myself  than  any  other  written  against  the  truth,  though  I  am  not 
particularly  named  or  opposed  therein ;  nor  do  I  intend  to  put  any  such  law  of 
disquietness  upon  my  spirit  as  to  think  myself  bound  to  reply  to  every  thing  that 
is  written  against  me,  whether  the  matter  and  subject  of  it  be  worth  the  public 
ventilation  or  no.  It  is  neither  name  nor  repute  that  I  eye  in  these  contests :  so 
the  truth  be  safe,  I  can  be  well  content  to  suffer.  Besides,  this  present  task  was  not 
voluntarily  undertaken  by  me;  it  was,  as  I  have  already  given  account,  imposed  on 
me  by  such  an  authority  as  I  could  not  waive.  For  Mr  Home's  book,  I  suppose 
you  are  not  acquainted  with  it;  that  alone  was  extant  before  my  last  engagement. 
Could  I  have  met  with  any  one  uninterested  person  that  would  have  said  it  de 
served  a  reply,  it  had  not  have  lain  so  long  unanswered.  In  the  meantime,  I 
cannot  but  rejoice  that  some,  like-minded  with  him,  cannot  impute  my  silence  to 
the  weakness  of  the  cause  I  managed,  but  to  my  incompetency  for  the  work  of 
maintaining  it.  To  Mr  Baxter,  as  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  have  made  a  return 
in  the  close  of  this  treatise;  wherein  I  suppose  I  have  put  an  end  to  that  contro 
versy.  Dr  Hammond's  defensative  came  forth  much  about  the  time  that  half 
this  treatise  was  finished,  and  being  about  a  matter  of  so  mean  concernment,  in 
comparison  of  those  weighty  truths  of  the  gospel  which  I  was  engaged  in  the 
defence  of,  I  durst  not  desert  my  station  to  turn  aside  thereto.  On  the  cursory 
view  I  have  taken  of  it,  I  look  upon  what  is  of  real  difference  between  that  learned 
person  and  myself  to  be  a  matter  of  easy  despatch.  His  leaves  are  much  more 
soft  and  gentle  than  those  of  Socinus,  Smalcius,  Crellius,  and  Schlichtingius.  If 
the  Lord  in  his  goodness  be  pleased  to  give  me  a  little  respite  and  leisure,  I  shall 
give  a  farther  account  of  the  whole  difference  between  the  learned  doctor  and  me, 
in  such  a  way  of  process  as  may  be  expected  from  so  slow  and  dull  a  person  as  I 
am.  In  the  meantime,  I  wish  him  a  better  cause  to  manage  than  that  wherein 
against  me  he  is  engaged,  and  better  principles  to  manage  a  good  cause  on  than 
some  of  those  in  his  treatise  of  schism,  and  some  others.  Fail  he  not  in  these,  his 
abilities  and  diligence  will  stand  him  in  very  good  stead.  I  shall  not  trouble  you 
with  things  which  I  have  advantages  other  ways  to  impart  my  thoughts  concern 
ing;  I  only  crave  that  you  would  be  pleased  candidly  to  accept  of  this  testimony  of 
my  respects  to  you,  and,  seeing  no  other  things  are  in  the  ensuing  treatise  pleaded 
for  but  such  as  are  universally  owned  amongst  you,  that,  according  to  your  several 
degrees,  you  would  take  it  into  your  patronage  or  use,  affording  him  in  his  daily 
labours  the  benefit  of  your  prayers  at  the  throne  of  grace,  who  is  your  unworthy 

OXOK.  CH.  CH.  COLL., 
April  1,  [1655.] 


To  those  that  labour  in  the  word  and  doctrine  in  these  nations  of  Eng 
land,  Scotland,  and  Ireland,  with  all  that  call  upon  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord,  John  Owen  wisheth  grace  and  peace  from  God  our 
Father,  and  from  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

THAT  so  mean  a  person  as  I  am  should  presume  in  this  public  manner  to 
make  address  to  all  those  comprised  in  the  title  of  this  epistle,  I  desire  it 
may  be  ascribed  to  the  business  I  come  about  and  the  message  that  I 
bring.  It  is  about  your  great  interest  and  concernment,  your  whole  por- 
tion°and  inheritance,  your  all,  that  I  am  to  deal  with  you.  If  he  who 
passes  by  his  neighbour's  house,  seeing  a  thief  breaking  up  its  foundations 
or  setting  fire  to  its  chief  materials,  will  be  far  from  being  censured  as  im 
portune  and  impudent  if  he  awake  and  call  upon  the  inhabitants,  though 
every  way  his  betters  (especially  if  all  his  own  estate  lie  therein  also), 
although  he  be  not  able  to  carry  one  vessel  of  water  to  the  quenching  of 
it,  I  hope  that,  finding  persons  endeavouring  to  put  fire  to  the  house  of 
God,  which  house  ye  are,  and  labouring  to  steal  away  the  whole  treasure 
thereof,  wherein  also  my  own  portion  doth  lie,  I  shall  not  be  condemned  of 
boldness  or  presumption  if  I  at  once  cry  out  to  all  persons,  however  con 
cerned,  to  take  heed  that  we  be  not  utterly  despoiled  of  our  treasure, 
though  when  I  have  so  done,  I  be  not  able  to  give  the  least  assistance  to 
the  defence  of  the  house  or  quenching  of  the  fire  kindled  about  it.  That 
of  no  less  importance  is  this  address  unto  you,  a  brief  discovery  of  its  oc 
casion  will  evince. 

The  Holy  Ghost  tells  us  that  we  are  "  built  upon  the  foundation  of  the 
apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief  corner-stone ; 
in  whom  all  the  building  fitly  framed  together  groweth  unto  an  holy 
temple  in  the  Lord :  in  whom  we  are  builded  together  for  an  habitation  of 
God  through  the  Spirit,"  Eph.  ii.  20-22.  And  thus  do  all  they  become 
the  house  of  Christ  "  who  hold  fast  the  confidence  and  the  rejoicing  of  the 
hope  firm  unto  the  end,"  Heb.  iii.  6.  In  this  house  of  God  there  are  daily 
builders,  according  as  new  living  stones  are  to  be  fitted  to  their  places 
therein ;  and  continual  oppositions  have  there  been  made  thereto,  and  will 
be,  "  till  we  all  come  in  the  unity  of  the  faith,  and  of  the  knowledge  of 
the  Son  of  God,  unto  a  perfect  man,  unto  the  measure  of  the  stature  of 
the  fulness  of  Christ,"  Eph.  iv.  13.  In  this  work  of  building  are  some 
employed  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  will  be  so  to  the  end  of  the  world,  Matt. 
xxviii.  19,  20,  Eph.  iv.  11,  12 ;  and  some  employ  themselves  at  least  in  a 
pretence  thereof,  but  are  indeed,  to  a  man,  every  one  like  the  foolish  wo 
man  that  pulls  down  her  house  with  both  her  hands.  Of  the  first  sort, 
"  other  foundation  can  no  man  lay,"  nor  doth  go  about  to  lay,  "  than  that 
is  laid,  which  is  Jesus  Christ,"  1  Cor.  iii.  11 ;  but  some  of  them  build  on 
this  foundation  "  gold,  silver,  and  precious  stones,"  keeping  fast  in  the 


•work  to  the  form  of  "  wholesome  words,"  and  contending  for  "  the  faith 
that  was  once  delivered  unto  the  saints." 

Others,  again,  lay  on  "  wood,  hay,  and  stubble,"  either  contending  about 
"foolish  questions,"  or  "vain  and  unprofitable  janglings,"  or  adding  to  what 
God  hath  commanded,  or  corrupting  and  perverting  what  he  hath  revealed 
and  instituted,  contrary  to  the  proportion  of  faith,  which  should  be  the 
rule  of  all  their  prophecy,  whereby  they  discharge  their  duty  of  building 
in  this  house.  Those  with  whom  I  am  at  present  to  deal,  and  concerning 
•whom  I  desire  to  tender  you  the  ensuing  account,  are  of  the  latter  sort; 
such  as,  not  content,  with  others,  to  attempt  sundry  parts  of  the  building, 
to  weaken  its  contexture,  or  deface  its  comeliness,  do  with  all  their  might 
set  themselves  against  the  work  [rock  ?]  itself,  the  great  foundation  and 
corner-stone  of  the  church,  the  Lord  Jesus,  who  is  "  God  blessed  for  ever." 
They  are  those,  I  say,  whom  I  would  warn  you  of,  in  whom,  of  old  and  of 
late,  the  spirit  of  error  hath  set  up  itself  with  such  an  efficacy  of  pride  and 
delusion,  as,  by  all  ways,  means,  [and]  devices  imaginable,  to  despoil  our 
dear  and  blessed  Redeemer,  our  Holy  One,  of  his  "eternal  power  and  God 
head;"  or  to  reject  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  and  to  substitute  in  his  room  a 
Christ  of  their  own,  one  like  themselves,  and  no  more;  to  adulterate  the 
church,  and  turn  aside  the  saints  to  a  thing  of  naught.  If  I  may  enjoy 
your  patience  whilst  I  give  a  brief  account  of  them,  their  ways  and  endea 
vours  for  the  compassing  of  their  cursed  ends;  of  our  present  concern 
ment  in  their  actings  and  seductions;  of  the  fire  kindled  by  them  at  our 
doors;  of  the  sad  diffusion  of  their  poison  throughout  the  world,  beyond 
•what  enters  into  the  hearts  of  the  most  of  men  to  imagine, — I  shall  sub 
join  thereunto  those  cautions  and  directions  which,  with  all  humbleness,  I 
have  to  tender  to  you,  to  guide  some,  and  strengthen  others,  and  stir  up 
all  to  be  watchful  against  this  great,  and  I  hope  the  last  considerable 
attempt  of  Satan  (by  way  of  seduction  and  temptation)  against  the  foun 
dation  of  the  gospel. 

Those,  then,  who  of  old  opposed  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  especially 
of  the  deity  of  Christ,  his  person  and  natures,  may  be  referred  to  three 
heads,  and  of  them  and  their  ways  this  is  the  sum : — 

The  first  sort  of  them  may  be  reckoned  to  be  those  who  are  commonly 
esteemed  to  be  followers  of  SIMON  MAGUS,  known  chiefly  by  the  names 
of  Gnostics  and  Valentinians.  These,  with  their  abominable  figments  of 
aeons,  and  their  combinations,  conjugations,  genealogies,  and  unintelligible 
imaginations,  wholly  overthrowing  the  whole  revelation  of  God  concern 
ing  himself  and  his  will,  the  Lord  Jesus  and  the  gospel,  chiefly,  with 
their  leaders,  Marcus,  Basilides,  Ptolemaeus,  Valentinus  secundus  (all  fol 
lowing  or  imitating  Simon  Magus  and  Menander),  of  all  others  most 
perplexed  and  infected  the  primitive  church  :  as  Irenzeus,  lib.  i. ;  Tertul- 
lian,  Prsescrip.  ad  Haeret.  cap.  xlix;  Philastrius,  in  his  catalogue  of  heretics; 
Epiphanius  in  Panario,  lib.  i.  torn,  ii ;  and  Augustine,  in  his  book  of  He 
resies,  l  "  ad  quod  vult  deus  manifesto."  To  these  may  be  added  Tatianus, 
Cerdo,  Marcion,  and  their  companions  (of  whom  see  Tertullian  at  large, 
and  Eusebius,  in  their  respective  places.)  I  shall  not  separate  from  them 
Montanus,  with  his  enthusiastical  formal  associates ;  in  whose  abominations 
it  was  hoped  that  these  latter  days  might  have  been  unconcerned,  until 
the  present  madness  of  some,  commonly  called  Quakers,  renewed  their 
follies ;  but  these  may  pass  (with  the  Manichees),  and  those  of  the  like  fond 
imaginations,  that  ever  and  anon  troubled  the  church  with  their  madness 
and  folly. 

1  Epiph.  Haer.  xlviL 


Of  the  second  rank  CERINTHUS  is  the  head,  with  Judaizing  Ebion;1  both 
denying  expressly  the  deity  of  Christ,  and  asserting  him  to  be  but  a  mere 
man;  even  in  the  entrance  of  the  Gospel  being  confounded  by  John,  as  is 
affirmed  by  Epiphanius,  Hser.  li.  "  Hieronymus  de  Scriptoribus  Eccle- 
siasticis  de  Johanne."  The  same  abomination  was  again  revived  by  Theo- 
dotus,  called  Coriarius  (who,  having  once  denied  Christ,  was  resolved  to 
do  so  always);  excommunicated  on  that  account  by  Victor,  as  Eusebius 
relates,  Hist.  Eccles.  lib.  v.  cap.  ult.,  where  he  gives  also  an  account  of  his 
associates  in  judgment,  Artemon,  Asclepiodotus,  Natalius,  etc. ;  and  the  • 
books  written  against  him  are  there  also  mentioned.  But  the  most  noto 
rious  head  and  patron  of  this  madness  was  Paulus  Samosatenus,  bishop  of 
Antioch,  anno  272 ;  of  whose  pride  and  passion,  folly,  followers,  assistants, 
opposition,  and  excommunication,  the  history  is  extant  at  large  in  Euse 
bius.  This  man's  pomp  and  folly,  his  compliance  with  the  Jews  and 
Zenobia,  the  queen  of  the  Palmyrians,  who  then  invaded  the  eastern 
parts  of  the  Roman  empire,  made  him  so  infamous  to  all  Christians,  that 
the  Socinians  do  scarce  plead  for  him,  or  own  him  as  the  author  of  their 
opinion.  Of  him  who  succeeded  him  in  his  opposition  to  Jesus  Christ, 
some  fifty  or  sixty  years  after,  namely,  Photinus,  bishop  of  Sirmium,  they 
constantly  boast.  Of  Samosatenus  and  his  heresy,  see  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles. 
lib.  vii.  cap.  xxix.,  xxx.,  and  Hilary,  De  Synodis ;  of  Photinus,  Socrat. 
Eccles.  Hist.  lib.  ii.  cap.  xxiv.,  xxv.  And  with  these  do  our  present  Soci 
nians  expressly  agree  in  the  matter  of  the  person  of  Christ.2 

To  the  third  head  I  refer  that  deluge  of  ARIANISM,  whose  rise,  con 
ception,  author,  and  promoters,  advantages,  success,  and  propagation ;  the 
persecutions,  cruelty,  and  tyranny  of  the  rulers,  emperors,  kings,  and 
governors  infected  with  it;  its  extent  and  continuance, — are  known  to  all 
who  have  taken  care  in  the  least  to  inquire  what  was  the  state  of  the  church 
of  Grod  in  former  days,  that  heresy  being  as  it  were  the  flood  of  water 
that  pursued  the  church  for  some  ages.  Of  Macedonius,  Nestorius,  and 
Eutyches, — the  first  denying  the  deity  of  the  Holy  Grhost,  the  second  the 
hypostatical  union  of  the  two  natures  of  Christ,  and  the  last  confounding 
them  in  his  person, — I  shall  not  need  to  speak.  These  by  the  Socinians  of 
our  days  are  disclaimed.8 

In  the  second  sort  chiefly  we  are  at  present  concerned.  Now,  to  give 
an  account,  from  what  is  come  down  unto  us,  by  testimonies  of  good  report 
and  esteem,  concerning  those  named,  Theodotus,  Paulus,  Photinus,  and  the 
rest  of  the  men  who  were  the  predecessors  of  them  with  whom  we  have  to 
do,  and  undertook  the  same  work  in  the  infancy  of  the  church  which  these 
are  now  engaged  in  when  it  is  drawing,  with  the  world,  to  its  period,  with 
what  were  their  ways,  lives,  temptations,  ends,  agreements,  differences 
among  them,  and  in  reference  to  the  persons  of  our  present  contest  (of 
whom  a  full  account  shall  be  given),  is  not  my  aim  nor  business.  It  hath 
been  done  by  others ;  and  to  do  it  with  any  exactness,  beyond  what  is 
commonly  known,  would  take  up  more  room  than  to  this  preface  is  allotted. 
Some  things  peculiarly  seem  of  concernment  for  our  observation,  from  the 


time  wherein  some  of  them  acted  their  parts  in  the  service  of  their  master. 
What  could  possibly  be  more  desired,  for  the  safeguarding  of  any  truth 
from  the  attempts  of  succeeding  generations,  and  for  giving  it  a  security 
above  all  control,  than  that,  upon  public  and  owned  opposition,  it  should 
receive  a  confirmation  by  men  acted  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  giving  out 
their  sentence  by  inspiration  from  God  ?  That,  among  other  important 
heads  of  the  gospel  (as  that  of  justification  by  faith  and  not  by  works,  of 
Christian  liberty,  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead),  this  most  glorious  truth, 
of  the  eternal  deity  of  the  Son  of  God,  underwent  an  open  opposition  from 
some  of  them  above  written,  during  the  life  of  some  of  the  apostles,  before 
the  writing  of  the  Gospel  by  John,  and  was  expressly  vindicated  by  him 
in  the  beginning  thereof,  is  acknowledged  by  all  who  have  in  any  measure 
inquired  into  and  impartially  weighed  the  reports  of  those  days.  What 
could  the  heart  of  the  most  resolved  unbeliever  desire  more  for  his  satis 
faction,  than  that  God  should  speak  from  heaven  for  the  conviction  of  his 
folly  and  ignorance?  or  what  can  our  adversaries  expect  more  from  us, 
when  we  tell  them  that  God  himself  immediately  determined  in  the  con 
troversy  wherein  they  are  engaged  ?  Perhaps  they  think  that  if  he  should 
now  speak  from  heaven  they  would  believe  him.  So  said  the  Jews  to 
Christ,  if  he  would  come  down  from  the  cross  when  they  had  nailed  him  to 
it,  in  the  sight  and  under  the  contempt  of  many  miracles  greater  than  the 
delivery  of  himself  could  any  way  appear  to  be.  The  rich  man  in  torments 
thought  his  brethren  would  repent  if  one  came  from  the  dead  and  preached 
to  them.  Abraham  tells  him,  "  If  they  will  not  hear  Moses  and  the 
prophets,  neither  will  they  be  persuaded,  though  one  rose  from  the  dead." 
Doubtless,  if  what  is  already  written  be  not  sufficient  to  convince  our  ad 
versaries,  though  God  should  speak  from  heaven  they  would  not  believe, 
nor  indeed  can,  if  they  will  abide  by  the  fundamental  principles  of  their 
religion.  Under  this  great  disadvantage  did  the  persuasion  of  the  Soci- 
nians  set  out  in  the  world,  that  Christ  is  only  •vp/Xog  aivdguvos, — by  nature 
no  more  but  a  man;  so  that  persons  not  deeply  acquainted  with  the 
methods  of  Satan  and  the  darkness  of  the  minds  of  men  could  not  but 
be  ready  to  conclude  it  certainly  bound  up  in  silence  for  ever.  But  how 
speedily  it  revived,  with  what  pride  and  passion  it  was  once  and  again 
endeavoured  to  be  propagated  in  the  world,  those  who  have  read  the  stories 
of  Paulus  Samosatenus  are  fully  acquainted,  who  yupvfi  ryj  xspahff,  blas 
phemed  the  Son  of  God  as  one  no  more  than  a  man.  In  some  space  of 
time,  these  men  being  decried  by  the  general  consent  of  the  residue  of 
mankind  professing  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  their  abomination  de 
stroyed  by  the  sword  of  faith,  managed  in  the  hands  of  the  saints  of  those 
days,  Satan  perceiving  himself  at  a  loss  and  under  an  impossibility  of  pre- 
valency,  whilst  the  grossness  of  the  error  he  strove  to  diffuse  terrified  all 
sorts  from  having  any  thing  to  do  therewith,  he  puts  on  it,  by  the  help 
of  Arius  and  his  followers,  another  gloss  and  appearance,  with  a  pretence 
of  allowing  Christ  a  deity,  though  a  subordinate,  created,  made,  divine 
nature,  which  in  the  fulness  of  time  assumed  flesh  of  the  virgin; — this 
opinion  being,  indeed,  no  less  really  destructive  to  the  true  and  eternal 
deity  of  the  Son  of  God  than  that  of  theirs  before  mentioned,  who  expressly 
affirmed  him  to  be  a  mere  man,  and  to  have  had  no  existence  before  his  nati 
vity  at  Bethlehem ;  yet  having  got  a  new  pretence  and  colour  of  ascribing 
something  more  excellent  and  sublime  unto  him  than  that  whereof  we  are 
all  in  common  partakers,  it  is  incredible  with  what  speedy  progress,  like 
the  breaking  out  of  a  mighty  flood,  it  overspread  the  face  of  the  earth. 
It  is  true,  it  had  in  its  very  entrance  all  the  advantages  of  craft,  fraud,  and 


subtilty,  and  in  its  carrying  on,  of  violence,  force,  and  cruelty,  and  from 
the  beginning  to  its  end,  of  ignorance,  blindness,  superstition,  and  profane- 
ness,  among  the  generality  of  them  with  whom  it  had  to  deal,  that  ever  any 
corrupt  folly  of  the  mind  of  man  met  withal.  The  rise,  progress,  cruelty, 
and  continuance  of  this  sect,  with  the  times  and  seasons  that  passed  with 
it  over  the  nations,  its  entertainment  by  the  many  barbarous  nations  which 
wasted,  spoiled,  and  divided  among  themselves  the  Roman  empire,  with 
their  parting  with  it  upon  almost  as  evil  an  account  as  at  first  they  embraced 
it,  are  not,  as  I  said,  my  business  now  to  discover.  God  purposing  to  revenge 
the  pride,  ingratitude,  ignorance,  profaneness,  and  idolatry  of  the  world, 
•which  was  then  in  a  great  measure  got  in  amongst  the  professors  of  Chris 
tianity,  by  another  more  spiritual,  cruel,  subtile,  and  lasting  "  mystery  of 
iniquity,"  caused  this  abomination  of  Arianism  to  give  place  to  the  power 
of  the  then  growing  Eoman  antichristian  state,  which,  about  the  sixth  or 
seventh  century  of  years  since  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God,  having 
lost  all  church  order  and  communion  of  the  institution  of  Jesus  Christ,  fell 
into  an  earthly,  political,  carnal  combination,  authorized  and  animated  by 
the  spirit  of  Satan,  for  the  ends  of  superstition,  idolatry,  persecution,  pride, 
and  atheism;  which  thereby  ever  since  [have  been]  vigorously  pursued. 

With  these  Arians,1  as  was  said,  do  our  SOCINIANS  refuse  communion, 
and  will  not  be  called  after  their  name :  not  that  their  profession  is  better 
than  theirs,  or  that  they  have  much  to  blame  in  what  they  divulge,  though 
they  agree  not  with  them  in  allowing  a  pre-existing  nature  to  Christ  be 
fore  his  incarnation;  but  that  generation  of  men  having  made  themselves 
infamous  to  posterity  by  their  wickedness,  perjuries,  crafts,  and  bloody 
cruelties,  and  having  been  pursued  by  eminent  and  extraordinary  judg 
ments  from  God,  they  are  not  willing  to  partake  of  the  prejudices  which 
they  justly  lie  under. 

From  the  year  600,  for  divers  ages,  we  have  little  noise  of  these  men's 
abominations,  as  to  the  person  of  Christ,  in  the  world.  Satan  had  some 
thing  else  to  busy  himself  about. 

A  design  he  had  in  hand  that  was  like  to  do  him  more  service  than  any 
""  his  former  attempts.  Having,  therefore,  tried  his  utmost  in  open  oppo 
sition  to  the  person  of  Christ  (the  dregs  of  the  poison  thus  shed  abroad 
infecting  in  some  measure  a  great  part  of  the  east  to  this  day),  by  a  way 
never  before  heard  of,  and  which  Christians  were  not  exercised  with  nor  in 
any  measure  aware  of,  he  subtilely  ruins  and  overthrows  all  his  offices  and 
•  the  whole  benefit  of  his  mediation,  and  introduceth  secretly  a  new  worship 
from  that  which  he  appointed,  by  the  means  and  endeavours  of  men  pre 
tending  to  act  and  do  all  that  they  did  for  the  advancement  of  his  kingdom 
and  glory.  And  therefore,  whilst  the  fatal  apostasy  of  the  western  world, 
under  the  Roman  antichrist,  was  contriving,  carrying  on,  and  heightening, 
till  it  came  to  its  discovery  and  ruin,  he  stirs  not  at  all  with  his  old  engines, 
•which  had  brought  in  a  revenue  of  obedience  to  his  kingdom  in  no  measure 

1  "  Ariani  Christo  divinum  cultum  non  tribuerunt.  Atqui  longe  prsestat  Trinitarium 
esse  quam  Christo  divinum  cultum  non  tribuere.  Imo  Trinitarius  (meo  quidem  judicioj 
modo  alioqui  Christ!  prsecepta  conservet,  nee  ulla  ratione  eos  persequatur,  qui  Trinitarh 
non  sunt  sed  potius  cum  ipsis  fraterne  conferre,  ac  veritatem  inquirere  non  recuset, 
merito  Christianus  dici  debet.  Qui  vero  Christum  divina  ratione  non  colit,  is  nullo 
modo  Christianus  dici  potest :  Quocirca  non  est  dubitandum,  quin  Deo  minus  displi- 
cuerunt  Homo-ousiani  Trinitarii,  quam  vulgus  Arianorum.  Quid  igitur  mirum,  si  cum 
totus  fere  orbis  Christianus  in  has  uuas  (ut  ita  dicam)  factiones  divisus  esset,  Deus  visi 
pnibus  et  miraculis  testari  voluisset  utram  ipsarum  viam  salutis  vel  adhuc  retineret,  vei 
jam  abjecisset.  Adde  Arianos  acerrime  tune  persecutes  fuisse  miseros  Homo-ousianos. 
idque  diu  et  variis  in  locis :  quare  merito  se  Deus  Arianis  iratum  ostendit." — Socin.  ad 
\Veik,  p.  452. 


proportionable  to  this,  which  by  this  new  device  he  found  accruing  to  him. 
But  when  the  appointed  time  of  mercy  was  come,  that  God  would  visit  his 
people  with  light  from  above,  and  begin  to  unravel  the  mystery  of  ini 
quity,  whose  abominations  had  destroyed  the  souls  of  them  that  embraced 
it,  and  whose  cruelty  had  cut  off  the  lives  of  thousands  who  had  opposed 
it,  by  the  Reformation,  eminently  and  successfully  begun  and  carried  on 
from  the  year  1517,  Satan  perceiving  that  even  this  his  great  master 
piece  of  deceit  and  subtilty  was  like  to  fail  him,  and  not  to  do  him  that 
service  which  formerly  it  had  done,  he  again  sets  on  foot  his  first  design,  of 
oppugning  the  eternal  deity  of  the  Son  of  God,  still  remembering  that  the 
ruin  of  his  kingdom  arose  from  the  Godhead  of  his  person  and  the  efficacy 
of  his  mediation.  So,  then,  as  for  the  first  three  hundred  years  of  the  pro 
fession  of  the  name  of  Christ  in  the  world,  he  had  variously  opposed  the 
Godhead  of  our  blessed  Saviour,  by  Simon  Magus,  Ebion,  Cerinthus,  Paulus 
Samosatenus,  Marcus,  Basilides,  Valentinus,  Calarbasus,  Marcion,  Photinus, 
Theodotus,  and  others;  and  from  their  dissipation  and  scattering,  having 
gathered  them  all  to  a  head  in  Arius  and  his  abomination, — which  some 
times  with  a  mighty  prevalency  of  force  and  violence,  sometimes  more  sub- 
tilely  (putting  out  by  the  way  the  several  branches  of  Macedonianism, 
Nestorianisrn,  Eutychianism,  all  looking  the  same  way  in  their  tendency 
therewith), — he  managed  almost  for  the  space  of  the  next  three  hundred 
years  ensuing;  and  losing  at  length  that  hold,  he  had  spent  more  than 
double  that  space  of  time  in  carrying  on  his  design  of  the  great  anti- 
christian  papal  apostasy ;  being  about  the  times  before  mentioned  most 
clearly  and  eminently  discovered  in  his  wicked  design,  and  being  in  danger 
to  lose  his  kingdom,  which  he  had  been  so  long  in  possession  of,  intend 
ing  if  it  were  possible  to  retrieve  his  advantage  again,  he  sets  on  those  men 
who  had  been  instrumental  to  reduce  the  Christian  religion  into  its  pri 
mitive  state  and  condition  with  those  very  errors  and  abominations  where 
with  he  opposed  and  assailed  the  primitive  professors  thereof, — if  they 
will  have  the  apostles'  doctrine,  they  shall  have  the  opposition  that  was 
made  unto  it  in  the  apostles'  times :  his  hopes  being  possibly  the  same 
that  formerly  they  were  (but  assuredly  Christ  will  prevent  him)  ; — for  as 
whilst  the  professors  of  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ  were  spiritual,  and  full 
of  the  power  of  that  religion  they  did  profess,  they  defended  the  truth 
thereof,  either  by  suffering,  as  under  Constantius,  Valens,  and  the  Goths 
and  Vandals,  or  by  spiritual  means  and  weapons;  so  when  they  were  carnal, 
and  lost  the  life  of  the  gospel,  yet  endeavouring  to  retain  the  truth  of  the 
letter  thereof,  falling  on  carnal,  politic  ways  for  the  supportment  of  it,  and 
the  suppressing  of  what  opposed  it,  Satan  quickly  closed  in  with  them,  and 
accomplished  all  his  ends  by  them,  causing  them  to  walk  in  all  those  ways 
of  law,  policy,  blood,  cruelty,  and  violence,  for  the  destruction  of  the  truth, 
•which  they  first  engaged  in  for  the  rooting  out  of  errors  and  heresies. 
"  Haud  ignota  loquor."  Those  who  have  considered  the  occasions  and  ad 
vantages  of  the  bishop  of  Rome's  rise  and  progress  know  these  things  to 
be  so.  Perhaps,  I  say,  he  might  have  thoughts  to  manage  the  same  or 
the  like  design  at  the  beginning  of  the  Reformation,  when,  with  great  craft 
and  subtilty,  he  set  on  foot  again  his  opposition  to  the  person  of  Christ; 
which  being  the  business  chiefly  under  consideration,  I  shall  give  some 
brief  account  thereof. 

Those  who  have  formerly  communicated  their  thoughts  and  observations 
to  us  on  this  subject  have  commonly  given  rise  to  their  discourses  from 
Servetus,  with  the  transactions  about  him  in  Helvetia,  and  the  ending  of 
his  tragedy  at  Geneva.  The  things  of  him  being  commonly  known,  and 


my  design  being  to  deal  with  them  in  their  chief  seat  and  residence, 
where,  after  they  had  a  while  hovered  about  most  nations  of  Europe,  they 
settled  themselves,  I  shall  forbear  to  pursue  them  up  and  down  in  their 
flight,  and  meet  with  them  only  at  their  nest  in  Poland  and  the  regions 
adjoining.  The  leaders  of  them  had  most  of  them  separated  themselves 
from  the  Papacy  on  pretence  of  embracing  the  reformed  religion ;  and 
under  that  covert  were  a  long  time  sheltered  from  violence,  and  got 
many  advantages  of  insinuating  their  abominations  (which  they  were  tho 
roughly  drenched  withal  before  they  left  the  Papacy)  into  the  minds  of 
many  who  professed  the  gospel. 

The  first  open  breach  they  made  in  Poland  was  in  the  year  1562  (some 
thing  having  been  attempted  before),  most  of  the  leaders  being  Italians, 
men  of  subtile  and  serpentine  wits.  The  chief  leaders  of  them  were 
Georgius  Blandrata,  Petrus  Statorius,  Franciscus  Lismaninus;  all  which 
had  been  eminent  in  promoting  the  Reformation.1 

Upon  their  first  tumultuating,  Statorius,  to  whom  afterwards  Socinus 
wrote  sundry  epistles,  and  lived  with  him  in  great  intimacy,  was  summoned 
to  a  meeting  of  ministers,  upon  an  accusation  that  he  denied  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  was  to  be  invocated.  Things  being  not  yet  ripe,  the  man  knowing 
that  if  he  were  cast  out  by  them  he  should  not  know  where  to  obtain, 
shelter,  he  secured  himself  by  dissimulation,  and  subscribed  this  confes 
sion  :  "  I  receive  and  reverence  the  prophetical  and  apostolical  doctrine, 
containing  the  true  knowledge  of  God  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost, 
and  freely  profess  that  God  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  ought  to 
be  worshipped  with  the  same  religion  or  worship,  distinctly  or  respectively, 
and  to  be  invocated,  according  to  the  truth  of  the  holy  Scripture.  And, 
lastly,  I  do  plainly  detest  every  heretical  blasphemy  concerning  God  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  whether  it  be  Arian,  Servetian,  Eunomian, 
or  Stancarian."2  And  this  confession  is  to  be  seen  in  the  acts  of  that  con 
vention,  under  his  own  hand,  to  this  day  ;  which  notwithstanding,  he  was 
a  fierce  opposer  of  the  doctrine  here  professed  all  his  days  afterward. 

And  I  the  rather  mention  this,  because  I  am  not  without  too  much  ground 
of  persuasion  that  thousands  of  the  same  judgment  with  this  man  do  at  this 
day,  by  the  like  dissimulation,  live  and  enjoy  many  advantages  both  in  the 
Papacy  and  among  the  reformed  churches,  spreading  the  poison  of  their 
abominations  as  they  can.  This  Statorius  I  find,  by  the  fiequent  mention 
made  of  him  by  Socinus,  to  have  lived  many  years  in  Poland,  with  what 
end  and  issue  of  his  life  I  know  not,  nor  more  of  him  but  what  is  con 
tained  in  Beza's  two  epistles  to  him,  whose  scholar  he  had  been,  when  he 
seemed  to  have  had  other  opinions  about  the  essence  of  God  than  those 
he  afterward  settled  in  by  the  instruction  of  Socinus. 

And  this  man  was  one  of  the  first  heads  of  that  multitude  of  men  com 
monly  known  by  the  name  of  Anabaptists  among  the  Papists  (who  took 
notice  of  little  but  their  outward  worship),  who,  having  entertained 
strange,  wild,  and  blasphemous  thoughts  concerning  the  essence  of  God, 

)  "De  tribus  in  una  divina  essentia  personis  anno  1562  controversial!!  moverunt,  in 
Min.  Pol.  Itali  quidam  advenae  ;  praecipui  autem  assertores  contra  S.  S.  Trinitatem  fuere, 
Georgius  Blandrata  theologus  ac  medicus,  Petrus  Statorius,  Tonvillanus,  Franciscus 
Lismaninus  theologiae  doctor,  quorum  tamen  ab  initio  opera  reformationis  valde  fuit 
ecclesise  Dei  procliva."— Hist.  Eccles.  Slavon.  lib.  i.  p.  84. 

1 "  Propheticam  et  apostolicam  doctrinam,  quae  yeram  Dei  Patris,  Filii,  et  Spiritus  Sancti 
cognitionem  continet,  amplector  ac  veneror,  parique  religione  Deum  Patrem,  Filium,  et 
Spiritum  Sanctum  distincte  secundum  sacrarum  literarum  yeritatem  colendum.  implo- 
randumque  precibus,  libere  profiteer.  Denique  omnem  hsereticam  de  Deo  Patre,  Filio,  et 
Bpiritu  Sancto  blasphemiam,  plane  detestor,  sive  Ariana  ilia,  sive  Servetiana,  sive  Euno- 
miana,  sive  Stancariana."— Act.  Eccles.  Min.  PoL  Syn.  Pinczov.  anno  1559. 

VOT.     TTTT  2 


were  afterward  brought  to  a  kind  of  settlement  by  Socinus,  in  that  reli 
gion  he  had  prepared  to  serve  them  all ;  and  into  his  word  at  last  con 
sented  the  whole  droves  of  Essentiators,  Tritheists,  Arians,  and  Sabellians, 
that  swarmed  in  those  days  in  Silesia,  Moravia,  and  some  other  parts  of 

CT  O  I*  m  fLIl  V 

For  Blandrata,  his  story  is  so  well  known,  from  the  epistles  of  Calvin 
and  Beza,  and  others,  that  I  shall  not  insist  much  upon  it.  The  sum  of 
what  is  commonly  known  of  him  is  collected  by  Hornbeck. 

The  records  of  the  synods  in  Poland  of  the  reformed  churches  give  us 
somewhat  farther  of  him ;  as  doth  Socinus  also  against  Weik.  Being  an 
excellent  physician,  he  was  entertained,  at  his  first  coming  into  Poland,  by 
Prince  Eadzivil,  the  then  great  patron  of  the  reformed  religion  in  those 
parts  of  the  world, — one  of  the  same  family  with  this  captain-general  of 
the  Polonian  forces  for  the  great  dukedom  of  Lithuania,  a  man  of  great 
success  in  many  fights  and  battles  agains't  the  Muscovites,  continuing  the 
same  office  to  this  day.  To  him  Calvin  instantly  wrote,  that  he  should 
take  care  of  Blandrata,  as  a  man  not  only  inclinable  to,  but  wholly 
infected  with,  Servetianism.1  In  that,  as  in  many  other  things  he  admo 
nished  men  of  by  his  epistles,  that  wise  and  diligent  person  had  the 
fate  to  tell  the  truth  and  not  be  believed.  See  Calvin's  epistles,  about  the 
year  1561.  But  the  man  on  this  occasion  being  sent  to  the  meeting  at 
Pinckzow  (as  Statorius),  he  subscribes  this  confession : — 

"  I  profess  myself  to  believe  in  one  God  the  Father,  and  in  one  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  his  Son,  and  in  one  Holy  Ghost,  whereof  each  is  essentially 
God.  I  detest  the  plurality  of  Gods,  seeing  to  us  there  is  one  only  God, 
indivisible  in  essence.  I  confess  three  distinct  persons,  the  eternal  deity 
and  generation  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  true  and  eternal 
God,  proceeding  from  them  both."2 

This  did  the  wretched  man  think  meet  to  do,  that  he  might  preserve  the 
good  esteem  of  his  patron  and  reserve  himself  for  a  fitter  opportunity  of 
doing  mischief ;  which  also  he  did,  obtaining  a  testimonial  from  the  whole 
meeting  of  his  soundness  in  the  faith,  with  letters  to  Prince  Eadzivil  and 
to  Calvin  signifying  the  same. 

Not  long  after  this,  by  the  great  repute  of  his  skill  in  physic,  he  became 
known  and  physician  to  Stephen,  king  of  Poland;  by  whose  favour,  having 
no  small  liberty  indulged  him,  he  became  the  patron  of  all  the  Antitrini- 
tarians  of  all  sorts  throughout  Poland  and  Transylvania.  What  books  he 
wrote,  and  what  pains  he  took  in  propagating  their  cause,  hath  been  de 
clared  by  others.  The  last  epistle  of  Socinus,  in  order  as  they  are  printed 
(it  being  without  date,  yet  evidently  written  many  years  before  most  of 
them  that  went  before  it),  is  to  this  Blandrata,  whose  inscription  is,  "Am- 
plissimo  clarissimoque  viro  Georgio  Blandratse  Stephani  invictissimi  regis 

1 "  De  Georgio  Blandrata,  pro  singular!  suo  in  ecclesiam  Dei  amore  pramonuit  Polonos 
Cl.  vir  Johan.  Cal.  quinetiam  illustrissimum  principem  palatimim,  Vilocensem,  Nico- 
laum  Radzivilium,  cujus  patrocinio  Blandrata  turn  utebatur.  Subplfecerat  enim  yir 
doctus  Blandratae  ingenium  ad  Served  sententiam  esse  compositum  :  itaque  serius  prin- 
cipi  suasor  fuit,  ut  sibi  ab  eo  cayeret :  sed  homo  ille  facile,  technis  suis  fallacibus,  optimo 

Erincipi  fucum  fecit,  adeo  ut  ille  iratus  Johanni  Calvino,  Blandratam  nomine  suo  ad 
ynodum  Pinckzoviensem  anno  1561,  25  Jun.  habitam,  delegaret  cum  literis,  quibus  serio 
postulabat  in  causa  Blandratts,  cum  ecclesia,  dicebatque  male  et  praecipitanter  egisse 
Calvinum,  quod  Blandratam  traduceret,  et  Servetismi  notaret." — Regen.  Hist.  lib.  i.  p.  85. 
2 "  Fateor  me  credere  in  unum  Deum  Patrem,  et  in  unum  Dominion  Jesum  Christum 
Filium  ejus,  et  in  unum  Spiritum  Sanctum,  quorum  quilibet  est  essentialiter  Deus.    Deo- 
rum  pluralitatem  detestor,  cum  unus  tan  turn  sit  nobis  Deus,  essentia  indivisibilis. 
Fateor  tres  cisse  distinctas  hypostases  ;  et  seternam  Christ!  clivinitatem  et  generationem  ; 
et  Spiritum  Sanctum,  unuin  et  uetoiuum  Deum,  ab  utrcque  p.ocedentem.  ' — Act.  Syn. 
Pinckzov.  anno  156L 


Polonise,  etc.,  archiatro  et  conciliario  intimo,  domino,  ac  patrono  suo 
perpetua  observantia  colendo ;  et  subscribitur,  Tibi  in  Domino  Jesu  de- 
ditissimus  cliens  tuus  F.  S."  To  that  esteem  was  he  grown  amongst 
them,  because  of  his  advantages  to  insinuate  them  into  the  knowledge  of 
great  men,  which  they  mostly  aimed  at ;  so  that  afterward,  when  Socinus 
wrote  his  answer  about  magistrates  to  Palseologus,  in  defence  of  the  Kaco- 
vians,1  Marcellus  Squarcialupus,  his  countryman,  a  man  of  the  same  persua 
sion  with  him,  falls  foully  on  him,  that  he  would  venture  to  do  it  without 
the  knowledge  and  consent  of  this  great  patron  of  theirs. 

But  though  this  man  by  his  dissimulation  and  falsehood  thus  escaped 
censure,  and  by  his  art  and  cunning. insinuation  obtained  high  promotions 
and  heaped  up  great  riches  in  the  world,  yet  even  in  this  life  he  escaped 
not  the  revenging  hand  of  God.  He  was  found  at  length  with  his  neck 
broke  in  his  bed ;  by  what  hand  none  knoweth.  Wherefore  Socinus,  ob 
serving  that  this  judgment  of  God  upon  him,  as  that  on  Franciscus  David 
(of  which  mention  shall  be  made  afterward),  would  be  fixed  on  in  the 
thoughts  of  men  to  the  prejudice  of  the  cause  which  he  favoured,  con 
sidering  more  what  was  for  his  interest  than  what  was  decent  or  conve 
nient,  decries  him  for  an  apostate  to  the  Jesuits  before  he  was  so  de 
stroyed,  and  intimates  that  he  was  strangled  in  his  bed  by  a  kinsman 
whom  he  had  made  his  heir,  for  haste  to  take  possession  of  his  great 

The  story  I  have  adjoined  at  large,  that  the  man's  ingenuity  and  thank 
fulness  to  his  friend  and  patron  may  be  seen.  He  tells  us,  that  before  the 
death  of  Stephen,  king  of  Poland,  he  was  turned  from  their  profession  by 
the  Jesuits.  Stephen,  king  of  Poland,  died  in  the  year  1588,  according  to 
Helvicus.  That  very  year  did  Socinus  write  his  answer  to  Volanus,  the 
second  part  whereof  he  inscribed  with  all  the  magnifical  titles  before  men 
tioned  to  Blandrata,  professing  himself  his  devoted  client,  and  him  the  great 
patron  of  their  religion !  So  that  though  I  can  easily  believe  what  he  re 
ports  of  his  covetousness  and  treachery,  and  the  manner  of  his  death,  yet 
as  to  his  apostasy  (though  possibly  he  might  fall  more  and  more  under  the 
power  of  his  atheism),  I  suppose  the  great  reason  of  imputing  that  to  him 
was  to  avoid  the  scandal  of  the  fearful  judgment  of  God  on  him  in  his 

For  Lismaninus,  the  third  person  mentioned,  he  was  accused  of  Arianism 
at  a  convention  at  Morden,  anno  1553,  and  there  acquitted  with  a  testi 
monial.3  But  in  the  year  1561,  at  another  meeting  at  Whodrislave,  he 

1  "  Dixit  heri  vir  amplissimus  Blandrata,  librum  se  tuum  contra  Palseologum  acce- 
pisse.     Habes  tu  unum  saltern  cui  sis  charissimus,  cui  omnia  debes,  qui  judicio  maxime 
polleat:  cur  tan  turn  studium,*  consiliique  ppndus  neglexisti?  poteras  non  tantum  ejua 
censuram  absoluti  jam  libri  petere,  sed  consilium  postulare  de  subeundo  non  levi  labore. 
Et  possum  affirmare  senis  consilium  tibi  sine  dubio,  si  petivisti,  profuturum  fuisse." — Ep. 
Marcel.  Square,  ad  Faust.  Socin. 

2  "  Monendum  lectorem  harum  rerum  ignarum  censui,  Blandratam  haud  paulum  ante 
mortem  suam  vivente  adhuc  Stephano  rege  Polonise,  in  illius  gratiam,  et  quo  ilium  erga 
se  liberaliorem  (ut  fecit)  redderet,  plurimum  remisisse  de  studio  sup  in  ecclesiis  nostris 
Transilvanicis  nostrisque  hominibus  juvandis :  imo  ep  tandem  devenisse  ut  vix  existima- 
retur  priorem  quam  tautopere  foverat  de  Deo  et  Christo  sententiam  retinere,  sed  potius 
Jesuitis,  qui  in  ea  provincia  tune  temporis  Stephani  regis^et  ejus  fratris  Christopher! 
hand  multo  ante  vitam  functi,  ope  ac  liberalitate  non  mediocriter,  florebant,  jam  adhserere 
aut  certe  cum  eis  quodammodo  colludere.  Illud  certissimum  est,  cum  ab  eo  tempore  quo 
liberalitatem  quam  ambiebat  regis  Stephani  erga  se  est  expertus,  ccepisse  quosdam  ex 
nostris  hominibus  quos  charissimos  prius  habebat,  et  suis  opibus  juvabat  spernere  ac 
deserere,  etiam  contra  promissa  et  pbligationem  suam,  et  tandem  illos  penitus  deseruisse, 
atque  omni  verte  et  sincerae  pietatis  studio  valedixisse,  et  solis  pecuniis  congerendis  in- 
tentum  fuisse,  qusa  fortasse  justissimo  Dei  judicio,  quod  gravissimum  exercere  solet  con 
tra  tales  desertores,  ei  necem  abeo  quem  suum  heredem  fecerat  conciliarunt." — Socin. 
ad  Weik.  cap.  ii.  p.  43,  44.  *  Act.  Syn.  Morden.  anno  1553. 


was  convicted  of  double  dealing,  and  after  that  wholly  fell  off  to  the  Anti- 
trinitarians,  and  in  the  issue  drowned  himself  in  a  well.1 

And  these  were  the  chief  settled  troublers  at  the  first  of  the  Polonian 
reformed  churches.  The  stories  of  Paulus  Alciatus,  Valentinus  Gentilis, 
Bernardus  Ochinus,  and  some  others,  are  so  well  known,  out  of  the  epistles 
of  Calvin,  Beza,  Bullingor,  Zanchius,  with  what  hath  of  late  from  them 
been  collected  by  Cloppenburgius,  Hornbeek,  Maresius,  Becmannus,  etc., 
that  it  cannot  but  be  needless  labour  for  me  to  go  over  them  again.  That 
which  I  aim  at  is,  from  their  own  writings,  and  what  remains  on  record 
concerning  them,  to  give  a  brief  account  of  the  first  breaking  in  of  Anti- 
trinitarianism  into  the  reformed  churches  of  Poland,  and  their  confused 
condition  before  headed  by  Socinus,  into  whose  name  they  have  since 
been  all  baptized. 

This,  then,  was  the  state  of  the  churches  in  those  days :  The  reformed 
religion  spreading  in  great  abundance,  and  churches  being  multiplied  every 
day  in  Poland,  Lithuania,  and  the  parts  adjoining;  some  tumults  having 
been  raised,  and  stirs  made  by  Osiander  and  Stancarus  about  the  essential 
righteousness  and  mediation  of  Christ  (concerning  which  the  reader  may 
consult  Calvin  at  large) ;  many  wild  and  foolish  opinions  being  scattered 
up  and  down,  about  the  nature  of  God,  the  Trinity,  and  Anabaptism,  by 
many  foreigners,  sundry  being  thereby  defiled,  the  opinions  of  Servetus 
having  wholly  infected  sundry  Italians:  the  persons  before  spoken  of, 
then  living  at  Geneva  and  about  the  towns  of  the  Switzers,  that  embraced 
the  gospel,  being  forced  to  flee  for  fear  of  being  dealt  withal  as  Servetus 
was  (the  judgment  of  most  Christian  rulers  in  whose  days  leading  them  to 
such  a  procedure,  how  rightly  I  do  not  now  determine),  scarce  any  one  of 
them  escaping  without  imprisonment  and  abjuration  (an  ill  foundation  of 
their  after  profession),  they  went  most  of  them  into  Poland,  looked  on  by 
them  as  a  place  of  liberty,  and  joined  themselves  to  the  reformed  churches 
in  those  places,  and  continuing  many  years  in  their  communion,  took  the 
opportunity  to  entice  and  seduce  many  ministers  with  others,  and  to 
strengthen  them  who  were  fallen  into  the  abominations  mentioned  before 
their  coming  to  them. 

After  many  tergiversations,  many  examinations  of  them,  many  false  sub 
scriptions,  in  the  year  1562,  they  fell  into  open  division  and  separation 
from  the  reformed  churches.2  The  ministers  that  fell  off  with  them,  besides 
Lismaninus  and  his  companions  (of  whom  before),  were  Gregorius  Pauli, 
Stanislaus,  Lutonius  Martinus  Crovicius,  Stanislaus  Paclesius,  Georgius 
Schomanus,  and  others,  most  of  whom  before  had  taken  good  pains  in 
preaching  the  gospel.  The  chief  patrons  and  promoters  were  Johannes 
Miemoljevius,  Hieronyraus  Philoponius,  Johannes  Cazaccovius,  the  one  a 
judge,  the  other  a  captain,  the  third  a  gentleman, — all  men  of  great 

The  year  that  this  breach  was  made,  L^ELIUS  SOCINUS,  then  of  the  age 
of  thirty-seven  years,  who  laid  the  foundations  that  his  nephew  after  built 
upon,  died  in  Switzerland,  as  the  author  of  the  life  of  Faustus  Socinus  in 
forms  us.*  The  man's  life  is  known :  he  was  full  of  Servetianisin,  and  had 


»  "Cum  diutius  non  possint  in  ecclesia  delitescere,  manifesto  schismate  Petricoviaj, anno 
1562,  habito  prius  colloquio  earn  scindunt  et  in  sententiam  suam  pertrahunt  plurimos 
turn  ex  ministris,  turn  ex  patronis.  Ministri  qui  partem  eorum  sequebantur  erant  in 
principio  Gregorius  Pauli,"  etc.— Hist.  Eccles.  Slavon.  Regen.  lib.  i.  p.  86. 

»  "Laelius  interim  pnematura  morte  extinctus  est ;  incidit  mors  in  diem  parendinum 
id.  Mail  1562,  setatis  vero  ejus  septimi  supra  trigesimuin."— Eques.  Polou  Vita  Faust. 
Socin.  fcenens. 


attempted  to  draw  sundry  men  of  note  to  his  abominations;  a  man  of 
great  subtilty  and  cunning,  as  Beza  says  of  him,1  incredibly  furnished  for 
contradiction  and  sophism;  which  the  author  of  the  life  of  Socinus  phrases, 
he  was  "  suggerendae  veritatis  minis  artifex."  He  made,  as  I  said,  many 
private  attempts  on  sundry  persons  to  entice  them  to  Photinianism ;  on 
some  with  success,  on  others  without.  Of  his  dealing  with  him,  and  the 
advantage  he  had  so  to  do,  Zanchius  gives  an  account  in  his  preface  to  his 
book  "  De  Tribus  Elohim."2 

He  was,  as  the  author  of  the  life  of  Faustus  Socinus  relates,  in  a  readi 
ness  to  have  published  his  notions  and  conceptions,  when  God,  by  his 
merciful  providence,  to  prevent  a  little  the  pouring  out  of  the  poison  by 
so  skilful  a  hand,  took  him  off  by  sudden  death;  and  Faustus  himself 
gives  the  same  account  of  the  season  of  his  death  in  an  epistle  to  Dudi- 

At  his  death,  FAUSTUS  SOCINUS,  being  then  about  the  age  of  twenty- 
three  years,  seizing  upon  all  his  uncle's  books,  after  a  while  returned  into 
Italy,  and  there  spent  in  courtship  and  idleness  in  Florence  twelve  years; 
which  he  afterward  grievously  lamented,  as  shall  be  declared.  Leaving 
him  a  while  to  his  pleasure  in  the  court  of  the  great  duke,  we  may  make 
back  again  into  Poland,  and  consider  the  progress  of  the  persons  who  made 
way  for  his  coming  amongst  them.  Having  made  their  separation,  and 
drawn  many  after  them,  they  at  length  brought  their  business  to  that 
height  that  they  came  to  a  disputation  with  the  reformed  ministers  at 
Petricove*  (where  the  parliament  of  the  kingdom  then  was)  by  the  permis 
sion  of  Sigismund  the  king,  in  the  year  1565,  whereof  the  ensuing  account 
is  given  by  Antonius  Posse  vine  the  Jesuit,  in  Atheis.  sui  sseculi,  cap.  xiii. 
fol.  15. 

The  assembly  of  states  was  called  against  the  Muscovians.  The  nobi 
lity  desiring  a  conference  between  the  ministers  of  the  reformed  churches 
and  the  Antitrinitarians,  it  wras  allowed  by  Sigismund  the  king.  On  the 
part  of  the  reformed  churches  there  were  four  ministers;  as  many  of  the 
other  side  came  also  prepared  for  the  encounter.  Being  met,  after  some 
discourse  the  chief  marshal  of  the  kingdom,  then  a  Protestant,  used  these 
words,  "  Seeing  the  proposition  to  be  debated  is  agreed  on,  begin,  in  the 
name  of  the  one  God  and  the  Trinity."6  Whereupon  one  of  the  opposite 
party  instantly  cried  out,  "  We  cannot  here  say  Amen,  nor  do  we  know 
that  God,  the  Trinity."6  Whereunto  the  ministers  subjoined,  "We  have 
no  need  of  any  other  proposition,  seeing  this  hath  offered  itself;  for,  God 
assisting,  we  will,  and  are  ready  to  demonstrate  that  the  Holy  Ghost  doth 

1  "Fuitetiam  Lselius  Socinus  Senensis  incredibiliter  ad  contradicendum  et  varies 
nectendos  nodos  comparatus;  nee,  nisi  post  mortem^cognitus  hujusmodi  perniciosissimis 
hseresibus  laborare." — Epist.  ad  Eccles.  Orthodox.  Ep  81. 

2  "Fuit  is  Lfelms  nobili  honestaque  familia  natus,  bene  Greece  et  Hebraice  doctiis, 
vitseque  etiam  externae  inculpatse,  quarum  rerum  causS,  mihi  quoque  intercesserat  cum. 
illo  non  vulgaris  amicitia ;  sed  homo  fuit  plenus  diversarum  hseresium,  quas  tamen  mild 
nunquam  proponebat  nisi  disputandi  causa,  et  semper  interrogans,  quasi  cuperet  doceri. 
Hanc  vero  Samosatenianam  imprimis  annos  multos  fovit,  et  quoscunque  potuit  pertraxit 
in  eundem  errorem ;  pertraxit  autem  non  paucos :  me  quoque  ut  dixi  diversis  tentabat 
rationibus,  si  eodem  possit  errore  simul,  et  asterno  exitio  secum  involvere."— Zanch.  Pre- 
fat.  ad  lib.  de  Tribus  Elohim. 

3  "  Cum  amicorum  precibus  permotus  tandem  constituisset.  atque  etiam  coepisset,  sal 
tern  inter  ipsos.  nonnulla  in  apertum  proferre."— Socin.  ad  Andraeum  Dudithium. 

*  "  Cum  his  Antitrinitariis  publicam  habuerunt  evangelic!  disputationem  PetricoviiB 
in  comitiis  regni  Sigism.  11  Aug.,  rege  permittente,  anno  1565.    Disputatores  fueniut," 
etc. — Regen.  ubi  supra. 

5  "Jam  igitur  constituta  propositione  qua  de  agendum  est,  in  nomine  Dei  unius  et 
Trinitatis  exordimini." 

•  "  Nos  vero  hie  non  dicimus  Amen,  neque  enim  nos  novimus  Deum  istum  Trinitatem." 


not  teach  us  any  other  God  in  the  Scripture,  but  him  only  who  is  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost;  that  is,  one  God  in  trinity."1 

This  colloquy  continued  three  days.  In  the  first,  the  ministers  who 
were  the  opponents  (the  other  always  choosing  to  answer),  by  express 
texts  of  Scripture  in  abundance,  confirmed  the  truth.  In  the  beginning 
of  their  testimonies  they  appealed  to  the  beginning  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament;1  and  upon  both  places  confounded  their  adversaries.  The 
second  day  the  testimonies  of  the  ancient  writers  of  the  church  were 
produced,  with  no  less  success.  And  on  the  third,  the  stories  of  Arius  and 
some  other  heretics  of  old.  The  issue  of  the  disputation  was  to  the  great 
advantage  of  the  truth;  which  Possevine  himself  cannot  deny,  though  he 
affirms  a  little  after  that  the  Calvinists  could  not  confute  the  Trinitarians, 
as  he  calls  them,  though  they  used  the  same  arguments  that  the  Catholics 
did,  cap.  xiv.  p.  366. 

Possevine  confesses  that  the  ministers  (as  they  called  themselves)  of 
Sarmatia  and  Transylvania,  in  their  book  of  the  False  and  True  ^nowledge 
of  God,  took  advantage  of  the  images  of  the  Catholics;3  for  whose  satisfac 
tion,  it  seems,  he  subjoins  the  theses  of  Thyreus,  wherein  he  labours  to 
prove  the  use  of  those  abominable  idols  to  be  lawful :  of  which  in  the  close 
of  this  address. 

And  this  was  the  first  great  obstacle  that  was  laid  in  the  way  of  the 
progress  of  the  reformed  religion  in  Poland ;  which,  by  Satan's  taking  the 
advantage  of  this  horrible  scandal,  is  at  this  day,  in  those  parts  of  the 
world,  weak  and  oppressed.  With  what  power  the  gospel  did  come  upon 
the  inhabitants  of  those  countries  at  the  first,  and  what  number  of  persons 
it  prevailed  upon  to  forsake  their  dumb  idols,  which  in  Egyptian  dark 
ness  they  had  long  worshipped,  is  evident  from  the  complaint  of  Cichovius 
the  priest,  who  tells  us  that  "  about  those  times,  in  the  whole  parliament 
of  the  dukedom  of  Lithuania,  there  were  not  above  one  or  two  Catholics," 
as  he  calls  them,  "besides  the  bishops."*  Yea,  among  the  bishops  them 
selves,  some  were  come  off  to  the  reformed  churches ;  amongst  whom  Geor- 
gius  Petrovicius,  bishop  of  Sarmogitia,  is  reckoned  by  Diatericus,  Chron. 
p.  49.  Yea,  and  so  far  had  the  gospel  influenced  those  nations,  that  in  the 
year  1542,  upon  the  death  of  King  Sigismund  II.,  during  the  interregnum, 
a  decree  was  made  in  parliament,  with  general  consent,  that  no  prejudice 
should  arise  to  any  for  the  protestant  religion,  but  that  a  firm  union  should 
be  between  the  persons  of  both  religions,  popish  and  protestant;  and  that 
whosoever  was  chosen  king  should  take  an  oath  to  preserve  this  union  and 
the  liberty  of  the  protestant  religion. — Sarricius,  Annal.  Pol.  lib.  viii. 
p.  403. 

1  "Nulla  jam  alia  propositions  nobis  opus  est,  cum  hsec  se  obtulerit;  nos  autem,  Deo 
volente,  et  volumus,  et  parati  sumus  demonstrate,  quod  Spiritus  Sanctus  non  alium  nos 
Deum  in  Scriptura  doceat,  nisi  solum  Patrem,  Filium,  et  Spiritum  Sanctum,  id  est,  Deum 
unum  in  trimtate." 

"  Nos  quidem  o  amici  baud  difficulter  poterimus  vobiscum  earn  rem  transigere,  nam 
ubi  primum  Biblia  aperueritis,  et  initium  veteris  et  novse  legis  consideraveritis,  statiin 
offendetis,  id  ibi  asseri  quod  vos  pernegatis,  sic  enim  Geneseos  primo  Scriptura  loquitur, 
Faciamus  hominem  ad  imaginem  nostram.  Nostram,  inquit,  non  meam.  Postea  vero  addit, 
Fecit  Deus.  Novae  autem  legis  initium  hoc  est,  Verbum  erat  apud  Deum,  et  Verbum  erat 
J)<w.  yidetis  ut  in  veteri  lege  loquatur  unus  Deus  tanquam  de  tribus;  hie  vero  quod 
Films,  Verbum  aeternum  (nam  quod  ab  initio  erat,  Eeternum  est)  erat  apud  Deum,  et  erat 
idem,  non  alius,  uti  vos  perperam  interpretamini,  Deus." 

"  Mox  agunt  de  imaginibus  sanctissimae  Trinitatis,  non  content!  simpliciorum  quo- 
rundam  picturas  convellere,  eas  item  quae  ab  Ecclesia  Catholica  rite  usurpatte  sunt,  scom- 
matibus  et  blasphemis  carminibus  proscindunt." — Anton.  Possev.  lib.  viii.  cap.  xv.  xvi. 

'Profecto  illis  temporibus  res  catholicorum  fere  deplorata  erat;  cum  in  amplissinio 
senatu  vix  unus  aut  alter  praeter  episcopos  reperiebatur."— Casper  Cicovius  Canon,  et 
Parock.  Sardom.  Alloquia. 


And  when  Henry,  duke  of  Anjou,  brother  to  Charles  IX.,  king  of  France, 
was  elected  king  of  Poland1  (being  then  a  man  of  great  esteem  in  the 
world,  for  the  wars  which  in  France  he  had  managed  for  the  Papists 
against  the  Prince  of  Conde  and  the  never-enough-magnified  Gasper 
Coligni,2  being  also  consenting  at  least  to  the  barbarous  massacre  of  the 
Protestants  in  that  nation),  and  coming  to  the  church  where  he  was  to  be 
crowned,  by  the  advice  of  the  clergy,  would  have  avoided  the  oath  of  pre 
serving  the  Protestants  and  keeping  peace  between  the  dissenters  in  reli 
gion,  John  Shirli,  palatine  of  Cracovia,  took  up  the  crown,  and  making 
ready  to  go  away  with  it  out  of  the  convention,  cried  out,  "  Si  non  jurabis, 
non  regnabis," — "If  you  will  not  swear,  you  shall  not  reign;"  and  thereby 
compelled  him  to  take  the  oath  agreed  upon. 

This  progress,  I  say,  had  the  doctrine  of  the  gospel  made  in  those  na 
tions,  so  considerable  a  portion  of  the  body  of  the  people  were  won  over 
to  the  belief  of  it,  when,  through  the  craft  and  subtilty  of  the  old  enemy 
of  the  propagation  thereof,  by  this  apostasy  of  some  to  Tritheism,  as  Gre- 
gorius  Pauli,  of  some  to  Arianism,  as  Erasmus  Johannes,  of  some  to  Pho- 
tinianism,  as  Statorius  and  Blandrata,  some  to  Judaism,  as  Seidelius  (of 
whom  afterward),  the  foundation  of  the  whole  building  was  loosened,  and, 
instead  of  a  progress,  the  religion  has  gone  backwards  almost  constantly  to 
this  day.  When  this  difference  first  fell  out,  the  Papists3  not  once  moved 
a  mouth  or  pen  for  a  long  time  against  the  broachers  of  all  the  blasphemies 
mentioned,  hoping  that  by  the  breaches  made  by  them  on  the  reformed 
churches  they  should  at  length  be  able  to  triumph  over  both ;  for  which 
end,  in  their  disputes  since  with  Protestants,  they  have  striven  to  take 
advantage  of  the  apostasy  of  many  of  those  who  had  pretended  to  plead 
against  the  Papacy  in  behalf  of  the  reformed  churches  and  afterward 
turned  Antitrinitarians,  as  I  remember  it  is  particularly  insisted  on  in  an 
English  treatise  which  I  saw  many  years  ago,  called  "  Micheus,  the  Con 
verted  Jew."  And  indeed  it  is  supposed  that  both  Paulus  Alciatus  and 
Ochinus  turned  Mohammedans.* 

Having  thus,  then,  disturbed  the  carrying  on  of  the  Keformation,  many 
ministers  and  churches  falling  off  to  Tritheism  and  Samosatenianism,  they 
laid  the  foundation  of  their  meeting  at  Racovia ;  from  which  place  they 
have  been  most  known  since  and  taken  notice  of  in  the  world.  The  first 
foundation  of  what  they  call  the  "church"  in  that  place  was  made  by  a  con 
fluence  of  strangers  out  of  Bohemia  and  Moravia,  with  some  Polonians," 
known  only  by  the  name  of  Anabaptists,  but  professing  a  community  of 

1 "  Neque  vero  hoc  juramentum  pro  tuenda  pace  evangelica  prsestitisset,  nisi  eura. 
Johannes  Shirli  palatinus  Cracovicnsis,  vir  plenus  zeli  et  inagnse  cum  potentia  authori- 
tatis,  adegisset ;  fertur  enim  cum  rex  Henncus  jam  coronandus  esset  nee  pacem  inter 
dis^identes  se  conservaturum  jurasset,  sed  silentio  eludere  vellet,  accepta  quae  regi  turn 
praeferebatur  corona,  exitum  ex  templo  parasse,  et  in  hsec  prorupisse  verba,  'Si  non  jurabis, 
non  regnabis.'" — Hist.  Eccles.  Slayon.  Regen.  lib.  i  p  92. 

2  "  Condaeo  succedit  Colignius,  vir  natalibus  et  militia  clarus,  qui  nisi  regi  suo  moveret 
bellum,  dissidii  fomes  et  caput,  virtutis  heroicae  exemplar  erat,  supra  antiques  duces, 
quos  mirata  est  Grsecia,  quos  Roma  extulit."— Gramond.  llist.  Gal.  lib.  vi. 

s"Quid  interea  bonus  ille  Hosius  Cardinalis  cuin  suis  Catholicis  ?  Nempe  ridere 
suaviter,  et  quasi  ista  nihil  ad  ipsos  pertinerent,  aliud  quidvis  a^ere,  imo  etiam  nostros 
undique,  ad  extinguendum  hoc  incendium  accurentes,  probrosis  libellis  arcessere." — 
Bcz.  Ep.  81. 

4  "  Cum  Gentilis  de  Paulo  Alciato  sodali  suo  rogaretur,  '  factus  est '  inquit '  Mahome- 
tanus.' "— Bez.  Ep.  ubi  supra. 

*  "  Erant  alii  quoque  Antitrinitarii  sectas  Anabaptisticas  per  Bohaomiam  et  Moravian* 
longe  lateque  serperitis  sectatores,  qui  absurdam  illam  bonorum  communionem,  obserya- 
turi  ultro  abjectis  suis  conditionibus  Racoviam  se  contulerunt.  Noyam  Hierusalem  ibi 
loci  exstracturi  (ut  aiebant),  ad  hanc  ineptam  societatem  plurimos  invitabant  nobiles," 
etc. — Regtvn.  lib.  i.  p.  DO. 


goods  and  a  setting  up  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  calling  Racovia,  where 
they  met,  the  New  Jerusalem,  or  at  least  professing  that  there  they  in 
tended  to  build  and  establish  the  New  Jerusalem,  with  other  fanatical 
follies;  which  Satan  hath  revived  in  persons  not  unlike  them,  and  caused 
to  be  acted  over  again,  in  the  days  wherein  we  live,  though,  for  the  most 
part,  with  less  appearance  of  holiness  and  integrity  of  conversation  than 
in  them  who  went  before. 

The  leaders  of  these  men,  who  called  themselves  their  "  ministers,"  were 
Gregorius  Pauli  and  Daniel  Bielenscius :  of  whom  Bielenscius  afterward 
recanted ;  and  Gregorius  Tauli,  being  utterly  wearied,  ran  away  from 
them  as  from  a  hard  service,1  and,  as  Faustus  Socinus  tells  us,  in  his  pre 
face  to  his  answer  to  Palaeologus,  in  his  old  age  left  off  all  study,  and  be 
took  himself  to  other  employments.  Such  were  the  persons  by  whom  this 
stir  began. 

This  Gregorius  Pauli,  Schlusselburgius  very  ignorantly  affirms  to  have 
been  the  head  of  the  Antitrinitarians  and  their  captain,2  when  he  was  a 
mere  common  trooper  amongst  them,  and  followed  after  others,  running 
away  betimes, — an  enthusiastical,  antimagistratical  heretic,  pleading  for 
community  of  goods.  But  this  Gregory  had  said  that  Luther  did  but  the 
least  part  of  the  work  for  the  destruction  of  antichrist ;  and  hence  is  the 
anger  of  Doctor  Conradus,  who  everywhere  shows  himself  as  zealous  of 
the  honour  of  Luther  as  of  Jesus  Christ.  So  was  the  man,  who  had  some 
divinity,  but  scarce  any  Latin  at  all. 

Be  pleased  now  to  take  a  brief  view  of  the  state  of  these  men  before 
the  coming  of  Faustus  Socinus  into  Poland  and  Transylvania,  both  these 
nations,  after  the  death  of  Sigismund  II.,  being  in  the  power  of  the 
same  family  of  the  Bathori.  Of  those  who  professed  the  reformed  religion 
and  were  fallen  from  the  Papacy,  there  were  three  sorts, — Lutherans,  and 
Calvinists,  and  the  United  Brethren ;  which  last  were  originally  Bohemian 
exiles,  but,  professing  and  practising  a  more  strict  way  of  church  order 
and  fellowship  than  the  other,  had  very  many  of  the  nobility  of  Poland 
and  the  people  joined  to  their  communion.  The  two  latter  agreed  in  all 
points  of  doctrine,  and  at  length  came,  in  sundry  meetings  and  synods, 
to  a  fair  agreement  and  correspondency,  forbearing  one  another  wherein 
they  could  not  concur  in  judgment.  Now,  as  these  grew  up  to  union 
amongst  themselves,  the  mixed  multitude  of  several  nations  that  had  joined 
themselves  unto  them  in  their  departure  out  of  Egypt  fell  a  lusting  after 
the  abominations  mentioned,  and  either  withdrew  themselves  or  were 
thrown  out  from  their  communion.  , 

At  first  there  were  almost  as  many  minds  as  men  amongst  them,  the 
tessera  of  their  agreement  among  themselves  being  purely  opposition  to 
the  Trinity,  upon  what  principle  soever.  Had  a  man  learned  to  blaspheme 
the  holy  Trinity,  were  it  on  Photinian,  Arian,  Sabellian, '  yea,  Moham 
medan  or  Judaical  principles,  he  was  a  companion  and  brother  amongst 
them!  To  this  the  most  of  them  added  Anabaptism,  with  the  necessity 
of  it,  and  among  the  Papists  were  known  by  no  other  name.  That  they 
opposed  the  Trinity,  that  they  consented  not  to  the  reformed  churches, 
was  their  religion.  For  Pelagianism,  afterward  introduced  by  Socinus, 

'  "  Quid  commemorem  animosi  illius  Gregorii  Pauli  insalutato  suo  grege  fugam."— Bez. 
"  Novi  isli  Ariani  exorti  sunt  in  Polonia,  Lithuania,  et  ipsa  nimirum  Transylvania, 
ac  eorum  caput  et  ducem  se  profitetur  Gregorius  Pauii  minister  ecclesise  Racoviensis, 
homo  impius,  ambitiosus,  et  in  blasphemis  effutiendis  plane  effrsenis ;  et  ita  quidem 
jactabundus,  ut  adscribere  sibi,  cum  aliis  Arianis,  non  -vereatur  excisionem  antichrist! : 
et  ejusdem  extirpationem  ab  inns  fundamentis :  Lutherum  enim  vix  miniiuam  partem 
revelationis  antichrist!  reliquisse.'1— Schlusselburg.  de  Antitrin.  p.  3. 




there  was  little  or  no  mention  [of  it]  among  them.  In  this  estate,  divided 
amongst  themselves,  notwithstanding  some  attempts  in  their  synods  (for 
synods  they  had)  to  keep  a  kind  of  peace  in  all  their  diversities  of  opinions, 
spending  their  time  in  disputes  and  quarrellings,  were  they  when  Faustus 
Socinus  came  into  Poland;  who  at  length  brought  them  into  the  condition 
wherein  they  are,  by  the  means  and  ways  that  shall  be  farther  insisted  on. 

And  this  state  of  things,  considering  how  not  unlike  the  condition  of 
multitudes  of  men  is  thereunto  in  these  nations  wherein  we  live,  hath 
oftentimes  made  me  fear  that  if  Satan  should  put  it  into  the  heart  of  any 
person  of  learning  and  ability  to  serve  his  lust  and  ambition  with  craft, 
wisdom,  and  diligence,  it  were  not  impossible  for  him  to  gather  the  dis 
persed  and  divided  opinionatists  of  our  days  to  a  consent  in  some  such 
body  of  religion  as  that  which  Socinus  framed  for  the  Polonians.  But  of 
him,  his  person,  and  labours,  by  what  ways  and  means  he  attained  his  end, 
it  may  not  be  unacceptable,  from  his  own  and  friends'  writings,  to  give 
some  farther  account. 

That  Faustus  Socinus,  of  Sienna,  was  born  of  a  good  and  ancient  family, 
famous  for  their  skill  in  the  law,  in  the  month  of  December  in  the  year 
1539 ;  that  he  lived  in  his  own  country  until  he  was  about  the  age  of 
twenty  years ;  that  then  leaving  his  country  after  his  uncle  Lselius,  he 
went  to  Leyden,  and  lived  there  three  years ;  that  then,  upon  the  death  of 
his  uncle,  having  got  his  books,  he  returned  into  Italy,  and  lived  in  the 
court  of  the  great  Duke  of  Tuscany  twelve  years,  about  the  close  of  which 
time  he  wrote  his  book  in  Italian,  "  De  Authoritate  Sacrse  Scripturae;" 
that  leaving  his  country  he  came  to  Basil  in  Switzerland,  and  abode  there 
three  years  and  somewhat  more, — are  things  commonly  known,  and  so 
little  to  our  purpose  that  I  shall  not  insist  upon  them. 

All  the  while  he  was  at  Basil  and  about  Germany  he  kept  his  opinions 
much  to  himself,  being  intent  upon  the  study  of  his  uncle  Lailius'  notes,  as 
the  Polonian  gentleman  who  wrote  his  life  confesseth;1  whereunto  he  added 
the  Dialogues  of  Bernardus  Ochinus,  as  himself  acknowledged,  which 
about  that  time  were  turned  into  Latin  by  Castalio,2  as  he  professed,  to 
get  money  by  his  labour  to  live  upon  (though  he  pleads  that  he  read 
Ochinus'  Dialogues  in  Poland,3  and  as  it  seems  not  before),  and  from  thence 
he  was  esteemed  to  have  taken  his  doctrine  of  the  mediation  of  Christ. 

The  papers  of  his  uncle  Lrelius,  of  which  himself  often  makes  mention, 

ere  principally  his  comment  upon  the  first  chapter  of  St  John,  and  some 
otes  upon  sundry  texts  of  Scripture  giving  testimony  to  the  deity  of 
Christ ;  among  which  Faustus  extols  that  abominable  corruption  of  John 
viii.  58,  of  which  afterward  I  shall  speak  at  large,  Socin.  Respon.  ad  Eras. 
Johan.  His  comment  on  the  first  of  John,*  Beza  tells  us,  is  the  most  de 
praved  and  corrupt  that  ever  was  put  forth,  its  author  having  outgone  all 
that  went  before  him  in  depraving  that  portion  of  Scripture. 

1  "  Illic  solidum  triennium  quod  excurrit  theologise  studio  incubuit,  paucissimis  LaBlii 
patrui  scriptis  et  pluribus  ab  iis  relictis  notis  muftum  adjutus  est." — Vita  Faust.  Socin. 

2  "  Bernardini  Ochini  Dialqgos  transtuli,  non  ut  judex,  sed  ut  translator;  et  ex  ejus- 
modi  opera  ad  alendam  familiam  qusestum  facere  solitus." — Castal.  Apol. 

3  "  lllud  certissimum  est,  Gregorium  Zarnovecium,  ministrum  ut  vocant  evangelicun' 
qui  nominatim  adversus  disputationem  meam  de  Jesu  Ghristo  Salyatore  libellum  Polo- 
nice  edidit,  in  ejus  prsefatione  asserere,  me  ex  Ochini  Dialogis  annis  abhinc  circiter  tri- 
ginta  quinque  editis  sententiam  illius  mese  disputatinnis  accepisse,  nam  certe  in  Dialogis 
illis,  quorum  non  pauca  exempla  jamdiu  in  ipsa  Polonia  mihi  videre  contigit,"  etc. — 
Faust.  Socin.  Ep.  ad  Martinum  Vaidovitum  Acad.  Craco.  Professorem. 

4  "  Lsolius  in  Samosateni  partes  clam  transiit ;  verbo  Dei  ut  ex  quodam  ejus  scripto 
nunc  liquet  adeo  vcteratorie  et  plane  versute  depravato,  ac  praascrtiru  primo  evansrelii 
Johann.   capite,  ut  mihi  quidem  videatur  omnes  ejus  corruptores  superasse."— Bez. 


The  comment  itself  is  published  by  Junius,  "  in  defensione  sanctse  Tri- 
nitatis,"  and  confuted  by  him  ;  and  Zanchius,  at  large,  "De  Tribus  Elohim, 
lib.  vi.  cap.  ii.,  et  deinceps;"  Faustus  varying  something  from  his  uncle  in 
the  carrying  on  of  the  same  design. 

His  book,  "  De  Jesu  Christo  Servatore,"  he  wrote,  as  the  author  of  his 
life  assures  us,  whilst  he  was  in  and  about  Basil,  as  also  many  passages  in 
his  epistles  and  other  writings  manifest. 

About  the  year  1575  he  began  it,  which  he  finished  about  the  year 
1578,  although  the  book  was  not  printed  till  the  year  1594;1  for  upon 
the  divulging  of  it  (he  then  living  at  Cracovia),  a  tumult  was  raised  against 
him  by  the  unruly  and  disorderly  students,  wherein  he  was  dragged  up 
and  down  and  beaten,  and  hardly  escaped  with  his  life ;  [against]  which 
inhumane  procedence  he  expostulates  at  large  in  an  epistle  to  Martin 
Vaidovita,  a  professor  of  the  university,  by  whose  means  he  was  delivered 
from  being  murdered.  But  this  fell  out  in  the  year  1598,  as  is  evident 
from  the  date  of  that  epistle,  four  years  after  the  book  was  printed. 

The  book  is  written  against  one  Covet,  whom  I  know  by  nothing  else 
but  what  of  his  disputes  with  Socinus  is  by  him  published.  Socinus  con- 
fesseth  that  he  was  a  learned  man,  and  in  repute  for  learning ; 2  and,  in 
deed,  if  we  may  take  an  estimate  of  the  man  from  the  little  that  is  there 
delivered  of  him,  he  was  a  godly,  honest,  and  very  learned  man,  and  spake 
as  much  in  the  cause  as  might  be  expected  or  was  needful,  before  farther 
opposition  was  made  to  the  truth  he  did  defend.  Of  all  the  books  of  him 
concerning  whom  we  speak,  this  his  disputation,  "  De  Jesu  Christo  Serva 
tore,"  is  written  with  the  greatest  strength,  subtilty,  and  plausibility, 
neither  is  any  thing  said  afterward  by  himself  or  the  rest  of  his  followers 
that  is  not  comprised  in  it.  Of  this  book  he  was  wont  afterward  to  boast, 
as  Crellius  informs  us,  and  to  say,  "  That  if  he  might  have  some  excellent 
adversary  to  deal  withal  upon  the  point,  he  then  would  show  what  could 
farther  be  spoken  of  the  subject."8 

This  book,  at  its  first  coming  out,  was  confuted  by  Gregorius  Zarno- 
vecius  (as  Socinus  testifies  in  his  epistle  to  Vaidovita)  in  the  Polonian  lan 
guage:  which  was  afterward  translated  into  Latin  by  Conradus  Huberus, 
and  printed  at  Franeker,  anno  1618;  also  by  one  Otho  Casmannus;  and 
thirdly,  at  large,  by  Sibrandus  Lubbertus,  anno  1611,  who,  together  with 
his  refutation,  printed  the  whole  book  itself,  I  hope  to  no  disadvantage 
of  the  truth,  though  a  late  apostate  to  Rome,  whom  we  called  here  Hugh 
Cressey,  but  is  lately  commenced  B.  Serenus  Cressey,  a  priest  of  the  order 
of  Benedict,  and  who  would  have  been  even  a  Carthusian  (such  high  honour 
did  the  man  aim  at),  tells  us  that  some  of  his  scholars  procured  him  to  do 
it,  that  so  they  might  get  the  book  itself  in  their  hands.*  But  the  book 
will  speak  for  itself  with  indifferent  readers,  and  for  its  clearness  is  ex 
tolled  by  Vossius.5  Generally,  all  that  have  since  written  of  that  subject, 

1  "  Cum  Basiliae  degeret  ad  annum  usque  1575  dum  lumen  sibi  exortum,  ad  alios  pro- 
pagnre  studet,  ab  amicis  ad  alienos  sensim  dilapso  disserendi  argumento,  disputationem 
de  Jesu  Christo  Servatore,  ore  primum  inchoatam,  postea  scripto  complexus  est :  cui  anno 
1578  summam  msmum  imposuit." — Eques.  Polon.  Vita  Socin. 

1 "  Et  sane  miram  est,  cum  bonis  literis  ut  audio  (et  ex  sermone  quern  simul  babuimus, 
atque  ex  tuis  scriptis  conjicere  potui),  sis  admodum  excultus,  te  id  non  vidisse." — Socin. 
de  Servatore,  lib.  i.  part  i.  cap.  x. 

1 "  Audivimus  ex  iis  qui  fa'miliariter  ipso  sunt  usi,  eum  significasse,  sicut  turn  jacta- 
batur,  excellens  sibi  si  contingeret  adversarius,  qui  librum  de  Jesu  Christo  Servatore 
adoriretur,  turn  demum  se  totum  hoc  argumentum  ab  origine  explicaturum. " — Grell. 
Prsofat.  Respon.  ad  Urot.,  p.  12. 

« Exomologesis  of  Hugh  Paulin  de  Cressey,  etc. 

*  "  Post  luculentas  Sibrandi  Lubberti  commentationes  adversum  Socinum  editas."— 
Voss.  Resp.  ad  Judicium  Ravensp. 


in  theses,  common-places,  lectures,  comments,  professed  controversies,  have 
made  that  book  the  ground  of  their  procedure. 

One  is  not  to  be  omitted,  which  is  in  the  hands  of  all  those  who  inquire 
into  these  things,  or  think  that  they  are  concerned  in  the  knowledge  of 
them;  this  is  Grotius'  "Defensio  Fidei  Catholicse  de  Satisfactione  Christi, 
adversus  Faustum  Socinum  Senensem."  Immediately  upon  the  coming 
out  of  that  book,  animadversions  were  put  forth  against  it  by  Harmanus 
Ravenspergcrus,  approved,  as  it  seems,  by  our  Doctor  Prideaux.1 

The  truth  is,  those  animadversions  of  Ravenspergerus  are  many  of  them 
slight,  and  in  sundry  things  he  was  mistaken ;  whereby  his  endeavours 
were  easily  eluded  by  the  learned  Vossius,2  in  his  vindication  of  Grotius 
against  him.  Not  that  the  dissertation  of  Grotius  is  free  from  being  liable 
to  many  and  just  exceptions,  partly  in  things  wherein  he  was  mistaken, 
partly  wherein  he  failed  in  what  he  undertook  (whereby  many  young  stu 
dents  are  deluded,  as  ere  long  may  be  manifested),  but  that  his  antagonist 
had  not  well  laid  his  action,  nor  did  pursue  it  with  any  skill. 

However,  the  interpretations  of  Scripture  given  therein  by  that  learned 
man  will  rise  up  in  judgment  against  many  of  the  annotations  which  in 
his  after-comments  on  the  Scripture  he  hath  divulged.  His  book  was 
at  length  answered  by  Crellius,  the  successor  of  Valentinus  Smalcius,  in 
the  school  and  society  of  Racovia,  after  which  Grotius  lived  about  twenty 
years,  and  never  attempted  any  reply.  Hereupon  it  has  been  generally 
concluded  that  the  man  was  wrought  over  to  drink  in  that  which  he  had 
before  published  to  be  the  most  destructive  poison  of  the  church  ;s  the  be 
lief  whereof  was  exceedingly  increased  and  cherished  by  an  epistle  of  his 
to  Crellius,  who  had  subtilely  managed  the  man,  according  to  his  desire  of 
honour  and  regard,  and  by  his  annotations,  of  which  we  shall  have  cause 
to  speak  afterward.  That  book  of  Crellius  has  since  been  at  large  con 
futed  by  Essenius,*  and  enervated  by  a  learned  and  ingenious  author  in  his 
"  Specimen  Refutations  Crellii  de  Satisfactione  Christi,"  published  about 
the  same  time  with  the  well-deserving  labour  of  Essenius,  in  the  year  1648. 

Most  of  the  arguments  and  sophisms  of  Socinus  about  this  business  are 
refuted  and  dissolved  by  David  Parseus,  in  his  comment  on  the  Romans, 
not  mentioning  the  name  of  him  whose  objections  they  were. 

About  the  year  1608,  Michael  Gitichius  gathered  together  the  sum  of 
what  is  argumentative  in  that  book  of  Socinus  against  the  satisfaction  of 
.Christ ;  which  was  answered  by  Ludovicus  Lucius,5  then  professor  at  Ham 
burg,  and  the  reply  of  Gitichius  confuted  and  removed  out  of  the  way 
by  the  same  hand.  In  that  brief  rescript  of  Lucius  there  is  a  clear  at 
tempt  to  the  enervating  of  the  whole  book  of  Socinus,  and  that  with  good 
success,  by  way  of  a  logical  and  scholastical  procedure.  Only,  I  cannot 
but  profess  my  sorrow  that,  having  in  his  first  answer  laid  that  solid  foun 
dation  of  the  necessity  of  the  satisfaction  of  Christ,  from  the  eternal  nature 
and  justice  of  God,  whereby  it  is  absolutely  impossible  that,  upon  the  con 
sideration  and  supposition  of  sin  committed,  it  should  be  pardoned  without 
a  due  compensation,  in  his  rejoinder  to  the  reply  of  Gitichius,  he  closes 
with  a  commonly  known  expression  of  Augustine,  "  That  God  could,  if  he 

1 "  In  eosdem  exercuit  stylum  ut  Socinianismi  suspicionem  amoliretur  Hugo  Grotius, 
sed  praevaricantcm  aliquoties  vellicat,  in  censura,  Ravenspergerus." — Prideaux  Lecti.  de 

*  Voss.  Resp.  ad  Judicium  Ravensp. 

3  "  Prresentissinram  ecclesias  venenum." 

*  Triumphus  Crucis  Autore  And.  Essen. 

•  *  "  De  gravissima  quaestione,  utrum  (Jhristus  pro  peccatis  nostris  justitioe  divinse  satis- 
feceret  necne  ?  scholastica  disputatio." 


would,  have  delivered  us  without  satisfaction,  but  he  would  not;"1  so 
casting  down  the  most  stable  and  unmovable  pillar  of  that  doctrine  which 
he  so  dexterously  built  up  in  spite  of  its  adversaries. 

I  dare  boldly  acquaint  the  younger  students  in  these  weighty  points  of 
the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ,  that  the  truth  of  this  one  particular,  concern 
ing  the  eternal  justice  of  God  indispensably  requiring  the  punishment  of 
sin,  being  well  established  (for  which  end  they  have  not  only  the  consent 
but  the  arguments  of  almost  all  who  have  handled  these  controversies  with 
skill  and  success),  will  securely  carry  them  through  all  the  sophisms  of  the 
adversaries,  and  cut  all  the  knots  which,  with  so  much  subtilty,  they  en 
deavour  to  tie  and  cast  upon  the  doctrine  of  the  satisfaction  of  Christ;  as 
I  have  in  part  elsewhere  demonstrated.2  From  this  book  also  did  Smalcius 
take  the  whole  of  what  he  has  delivered  about  the  death  of  Christ  in  his 
Racovian  Catechism,  not  adding  any  thing  at  all  of  his  own ;  which  Cate 
chism,  as  it  was  heretofore  confuted  by  Frederick  Bauldwinus,  by  order 
of  the  university  of  Wittenburgh,  and  is  by  several  parcels  by  many  re 
moved  out  of  the  way,  especially  by  Altingius  and  Maccovius,  so  of  late  it 
is  wholly  answered  by  Nicolaus  Arnoldus,3  now  professor  at  Franeker ; 
which  coming  lately  to  my  hands  prevented  me  from  proceeding  to  a  just, 
orderly  refutation  of  the  whole,  as  I  was  intended  to  do,  although  I  hope 
the  reader  will  not  find  any  thing  of  importance  therein  omitted. 

To  close  the  story  of  this  book  of  Socinus,  and  the  progress  it  hath 
made  in  the  world:  this  I  dare  assure  them  who  are  less  exercised  in 
these  studies,  that  though  the  whole  of  the  treatise  hath  at  first  view  a 
very  plausible  pretence  and  appearance,  yet  there  is  a  line  of  sophistry 
running  throu°h  it,  which  being  once  discovered  (as,  indeed,  it  may  be 
easily  felt,  with  the  help  of  some  few  principles),  the  whole  fabric  of  it 
will  fall  to  the  ground,  and  appear  as  weak  and  contemptible  a  piece  as 
any  we  have  to  deal  withal  in  that  warfare  which  is  to  be  undertaken  for 
the  truths  of  the  gospel.  This  also  I  cannot  omit,  as  to  the  rise  of  this 
abomination  of  denying  the  satisfaction  of  Christ,  that  as  it  seems  to  have 
been  first  invented  by  the  Pelagians,  so  in  after  ages  it  was  vented  by 
Petrus  Abelardus,  professor  of  philosophy  at  Paris  ;  of  whom  Bernard,  who 
wrote  against  him,  saith,  "  Habemus  in  Francia  novum  de  vetere  magistro 
theologum,  qui  ab  ineunte  setate  sua  in  arte  dialectica  lusit,  et  nunc  in 
Scripturis  sanctis  insanit:"  and  in  his  epistle  (which  is  to  Pope  Innocent) 
about  him,*  he  strongly  confutes  his  imaginations  about  this  very  business ; 
whereupon  he  was  condemned  in  a  council  at  Rome,  held  by  the  same 

This  part  of  our  faith  being  of  so  great  weight  and  importance,  the 
great  basis  and  foundation  of  the  church,  you  will  find  it  at  large  insisted 
on  and  vindicated  in  the  ensuing  treatise. 

The  author  of  the  life  of  Socinus  tells  us  (as  he  himself  also  gives  in 
the  information)  that  whilst  he  abode  about  Switzerland,  at  Basil  and 
Tigurum  [Zurich],  he  had  a  dispute  with  Puccius ;  which  also  is  since  pub 
lished.  This  was  before  his  going  into  Poland  in  the  year  1578.8 

The  story  of  this  Puccius,  because  it  may  be  of  some  use  as  to  the  pre 
sent  estate  of  the  minds  of  many  in  the  things  of  God,  I  shall  briefly  give 

»  "  Gitichio  itaque  de  absolute  Dei  potentia  seu  P9testate  (de  qua  nulla  nobis  dubitatio) 
mamter  blateranti,  elegantissimis  Augustini  verbis  respondeo,  '  Omnia  Deus  potuit,  si 
vohnsset,  etc.— Lucius  ad  Gitich.  p.  110. 

,  *  Diatrib.  de  Justit.  Divin.  Vind.  *  Religio  Sociniani  Refutata. 

Be™ar(i-.  i-P-  190.  »  Baroni.  ad  aim.  1140. 

Aliam  interim  cum  Francisco  Puccio  ineunte  anno  157s,  Ti&uri  confecit."— Vita 
Faust.  Socin. 


from  Socinus  himself  (Ep.  3,  ad  Matt.  Radec.),  and  that  as  a  tremen 
dous  example  of  the  righteous  judgment  of  God,  giving  up  a  person  of 
a  light,  unstable  spirit  to  fearful  delusions,  with  a  desperate  issue.  Origi 
nally  he  was  a  merchant  of  a  good  and  noble  family,  but  leaving  his  pro 
fession  he  betook  himself  to  study,1  and  for  his  advantage  therein  came 
hither  to  Oxford.2  After  lie  had  stayed  here  until  he  began  to  vent  some 
paradoxes  in  religion,  about  the  year  1565  (being  not  able  here  to  prevail 
with  any  to  close  with  him),  he  went  to  Basil,  where  there  was  a  dispute 
between  him  and  Socinus,  before  mentioned;  in  the  issue  whereof  they 
both  professed  that  they  could  agree  in  nothing  in  religion  but  that  there 
was  a  God  that  made  the  world.  At  Basil  he  maintained  universal  re 
demption  and  a  natural  faith,  as  they  then  termed  it,  or  an  innate  power 
of  believing  without  the  efficacy  of  the  grace  of  God,  for  which  he  was 
compelled  thence  to  depart;  which  doing  he  returned  again  into  England, 
where,  upon  the  same  account,  he  was  cast  into  prison  for  a  season;  thence 
being  released,  he  went  into  Holland,  from  whence  by  letters  he  chal 
lenged  Socinus  to  dispute,  and  went  one  thousand  miles  (namely,  to  Cra- 
covia  in  Poland)  afterward  to  make  it  good.  After  some  disputes  there 
(both  parties  condescending  to  them  on  very  ridiculous  conditions),  So 
cinus  seeming  to  prevail,  by  having  most  friends  among  the  judges,  as  the 
other  professed,  he  stayed  there  a  while,  and  wrote  a  book,  which  he 
styled  "  The  Shut  Bible,  and  of  Elias,"  wherein  he  laboured  to  deny  all 
ordinances,  ministry,  and  preaching,  until  Elias  should  come  and  restore 
all  things.  His  reason  was  taken  from  the  defection  and  apostasy  of  the 
church ;  wherein,  said  he,  all  truth  and  order  was  lost,  the  state  of  the 
church  being  not  again  to  be  recovered,  unless  some  with  apostolical  au 
thority  and  power  of  working  miracles  were  immediately  sent  of  God  for 
that  purpose.  How  far  this  persuasion  hath  prevailed  with  some  in  our 
days,  we  all  know  and  lament.  Puccius  at  length  begins  to  fancy  that  he 
shall  himself  be  employed  in  this  great  restoration  that  is  to  be  made  of 
the  church,  by  immediate  mission  from  God !  Whilst  he  was  in  expectation 
of  his  call  hereunto,  there  come  two  Englishmen  into  Poland,  men  pre 
tending  discourse  with  angels  and  revelations  from  God :  one  of  them  was 
the  chief  at  revelations  (their  names  I  cannot  learn),  the  other  gave  out 
what  he  received,  in  his  daily  converse  with  angels,  and  the  words  he  heard 
from  God,  about  the  destruction  of  all  the  present  frame  of  the  worship 
•of  God.  To  these  men  Puccius  joined  himself,  and  followed  them  to 
Prague  in  Bohemia,  though  his  friends  dealt  with  him  to  the  contrary, 
assuring  him  that  one  of  his  companions  was  a  mountebank  and  the  other 
a  magician ;  but  being  full  of  his  former  persuasion  of  the  ceasing  of  all 
ordinances  and  institutions,  with  the  necessity  of  their  restitution  by  im 
mediate  revelation  from  God,  having  got  companions  fit  to  harden  him  in 
his  folly  and  presumption,  he  scorned  all  advice,  and  away  he  went  to 
Prague.  No  sooner  came  he  thither  but  his  prophet  had  a  revelation  by  an 
angel  that  Puccius  must  become  Papist,  his  cheating  companion  having 
never  been  otherwise.  Accordingly  he  turns  Papist ;  begs  pardon  publicly 
for  his  deserting  the  Roman  church,  is  reconciled  by  a  priest,  in  whose 
society  after  he  had  a  while  continued,  and  laboured  to  pervert  others  to 
the  same  superstition  with  himself,  he  died  a  desperate  magician.  Have 
none  in  our  days  been  led  into  the  like  maze  ?  hath  not  Satan  led  some  in 

1  "  Ex  nobili  admodum  familia,  quse  etiam  trcs  cardinales  habuit,  natus,  mercatura 
relicta  se  totum  sacrarum  literarum  studio  tradidit." 

2 "  Quod  ut  comiuodius  facere  posset  in  Angliam  se  contulit,  ibique  in  Oxoniensi 
gymnasio  aliquandiu  se  exercuit,"  etc. 


the  same  circle,  setting  out  from  superstition  to  profaneness,  passing 
through  some  zeal  and  earnestness  in  religion,  rising  to  a  contempt  of 
ministry  and  ordinances,  with  an  expectation  of  revelations  and  commu 
nion  with  angels  ?  And  how  many  have  again  sunk  down  into  Popery, 
atheism,  and  horrible  abominations,  is  known  to  all  in  this  nation  who 
think  it  their  duty  to  inquire  into  the  things  of  God.  I  have  given  this 
instance  only  to  manifest  that  the  old  enemy  of  our  salvation  is  not  play 
ing  any  new  game  of  deceit  and  temptation,  but  such  as  he  hath  suc 
cessfully  acted  in  former  generations.  Let  not  us  be  ignorant  of  his 

By  the  way,  a  little  farther  to  take  in  the  consideration  of  men  like- 
minded  with  him  last  mentioned :  of  those  who  denied  all  ordinances, 
and  maintained  such  an  utter  loss  and  defection  of  all  church  state  and 
order  that  it  was  impossible  it  should  be  restored  without  new  apostles, 
evidencing  their  ministry  by  miracles,  this  was  commonly  the  issue,  that 
being  pressed  with  this,  that  there  was  nothing  needful  to  constitute  a 
church  of  Christ  but  that  there  were  a  company  of  men  believing  in  Jesus 
Christ,  receiving  the  word  of  God,  and  taking  it  for  their  rule,  they  de 
nied  that  indeed  now  there  was  or  could  be  any  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  the 
ministers  that  should  beget  it  being  utterly  ceased,  and  therefore  it  was 
advisable  for  men  to  serve  God,  to  live  justly  and  honestly,  according  to 
the  dictates  of  the  law  of  nature,  and  to  omit  all  thoughts  of  Christ  be 
yond  an  expectation  of  his  sending  persons  hereafter  to  acquaint  the 
world  again  with  his  worship. 

That  this  was  the  judgment  of  Matt.  Radecius,  his  honoured  friend, 
Socinus  informs  us;1  though  he  mollifies  his  expression,  p.  123,  ascribing 
it  to  others.  Whether  many  in  our  days  are  not  insensibly  fallen  into  the 
same  abominations,  a  little  time  will  discover.  The  main  of  the  plea  of 
the  men  of  this  persuasion  in  those  days  was  taken  from  the  example  of  the 
Israelites  under  that  idolatrous  apostasy  wherein  they  were  engaged  by 
Jeroboam.  "In  the  days  of  Elijah  there  were,"  said  they,  "seven  thousand 
who  joined  not  with  the  residue  in  their  false  worship  and  idolatry,  but 
yet  they  never  went  about  to  gather,  constitute,  and  set  up  a  new  church 
or  churches,  but  remained  in  their  scattered  condition,  keeping  themselves 
as  they  could  from  the  abominations  of  their  brethren;" — not  considering 
that  there  is  not  the  same  reason  of  the  Judaical  and  Christian  churches, 
in  that  the  carrying  on  of  the  worship  of  God  among  them  was  annexed  to 
one  tribe,  yea,  to  one  family  in  that  tribe,  and  chiefly  tied  to  one  certain 
place,  no  public  instituted  worship,  such  as  was  to  be  the  bond  of  com 
munion  for  the  church,  being  acceptable  that  was  not  performed  by  those 
persons  in  that  place :  so  that  it  was  utterly  impossible  for  the  godly  in 
Israel  then,  or  the  ten  tribes,  to  set  up  a  new  church-state,  seeing  they 
neither  had  the  persons  nor  were  possessed  of  the  place,  without  which  no 
such  constitution  was  acceptable  to  God,  as  not  being  of  his  appointment. 
Under  the  gospel  it  is  not  so,  either  as  to  the  one  or  other.  All  places 
being  now  alike,  and  all  persons  who  are  enabled  thereunto  having  liberty 
to  preach  the  word  in  the  order  by  Christ  appointed,  the  erecting  of 
churches  and  the  celebration  of  ordinances  is  recoverable,  according  to 
the  mind  of  God,  out  of  the  greatest  defection  imaginable,  whilst  unto 
any  persons  there  is  a  continuance  of  the  word  and  Spirit. 

But  to  proceed  with  Socinus.  Blandrata  having  got  a  great  interest  with 
the  king  of  Poland  and  prince  of  Transylvania,  as  hath  been  declared, 
and  making  it  his  business  to  promote  the  Antitrinitarians,  of  what  sort 
1  Ejv  ad  Radcc.  3,  p.  87, 119. 


soever,  being  in  Transylvania,  where  the  men  of  his  own  abomination 
were  exceedingly  divided  about  the  invocation  and  adoration  of  Jesus 
Christ,  Franciscus  David  carrying  all  before  him  in  an  opposition  there 
unto  (of  which  whole  business  I  shall  give  a  farther  account  afterward), 
he  sends  for  Socinus,1  who  was  known  to  them,  and,  from  his  dealing  with 
Puccius;  began  to  be  famed  for  a  disputant,  to  come  to  him  into  Transyl 
vania,  to  dispute  with  and  confute  Franciscus  David,  in  the  end  of  the 
year  1578 ;  where  what  success  his  dispute  had,  in  the  imprisonment  and 
death  of  David,  shall  be  afterward  related. 

Being  now  fallen  upon  this  controversy,  which  fell  out  before  Faustus' 
going  into  Poland,  before  I  proceed  to  his  work  and  business  there,  I 
shall  give  a  brief  account  of  this  business  which  I  have  now  mentioned, 
and  on  which  occasion  he  was  sent  for  by  Blandrata  into  Poland,  referring 
the  most  considerable  disputes  he  had  about  that  difference  to  that  place 
in  the  ensuing  treatise  where  I  shall  treat  of  the  invocation  and  worship 
of  Christ. 

After  way  was  once  made  in  the  minds  of  men  for  the  farther  work  of 
Satan,  by  denying  the  deity  of  our  blessed  Lord  Jesus,  very  many  quickly 
grew  to  have  more  contemptible  thoughts  of  him  than  those  seemed  to  be 
willing  they  should  from  whose  principles  they  professed,  and  indeed 
righteously,  that  their  mean  esteem  of  him  did  arise.  Hence  Franciscus 
David,  Georgius  Enjedinus,  Christianus  Franken,  and  sundry  others,  denied 
that  Christ  was  to  be  tvorshipped  with  religious  worship,  or  that  he  might 
be  invocated  and  called  upon.  Against  these  Socinus,  indeed,  contended 
with  all  his  might,  professing  that  he  would  not  account  such  as  Chris 
tians  who  would  not  allow  that  Christ  might  be  invocated  and  was  to  be 
worshipped;  which  that  he  was  to  be,  he  proved  by  undeniable  testimonies 
of  Scripture.  But  yet  when  himself  came  to  answer  their  arguments, 
whereby  they  endeavoured  to  prove  that  a  mere  man  (such  as  on  both 
sides  they  acknowledged  Christ  to  be)  might  not  be  worshipped  with 
religious  worship  or  divine  adoration,  the  man,  with  all  his  craft  and 
subtilty,  was  entangled,  utterly  confounded,  silenced,  slain  with  his  own 
weapons,  and  triumphed  over,  as  I  shall  afterward  manifest  in  the  account 
which  I  shall  give  of  the  disputation  between  him  and  Christianus  Franken 
about  this  business:  God  in  his  righteous  judgment  so  ordering  things, 
that  he  who  would  not  embrace  the  truth  which  he  ought  to  have  re 
ceived  should  not  be  able  to  maintain  and  defend  that  truth  which  he  did 
receive ;  for  having,  what  in  him  lay,  digged  up  the  only  foundation  of 
the  religious  worship  and  adoration  of  Christ,  he  was  altogether  unable 
to  keep  the  building  upright.  Nor  did  this  fall  out  for  want  of  ability  in 
the  man,  no  man  under  heaven  being  able  on  his  false  hypothesis  to  main 
tain  the  worship  of  Christ,  but,  as  was  said,  merely  by  the  just  hand  of 
God,  giving  him  up  to  be  punished  by  his  own  errors  and  darkness. 

Being  hardened  in  the  contempt  of  Christ  by  the  success  they  had 
against  Socinus  and  his  followers,  with  whom  they  conversed  and  dis 
puted,  some  of  the  men  before  mentioned  stayed  not  with  him  at  the 
affirming  of  him  to  be  a  mere  man,  nor  yet  where  they  began,  building  on 
that  supposition  that  he  was  not  to  be  worshipped,  but  proceeded  yet  far 
ther,  and  affirmed  that  he  was  indeed  a  good  man  and  sent  of  God,  but 
yet  he  spake  not  by  the  spirit  of  prophecy,  but  so  as  that  whatever  was 

Francisci  Davi- 
remcdium  qusereiis 
prsecipuum  factiouis 
duccni  Franciscum  Davidein,  a  tarn  turpi  et  pernicioso  errore  abstralieret." — Vita  Faust. 



spoken  by  him  and  written  by  his  apostles  was  to  be  examined  by  Moses 
and  the  prophets,  whereto  if  it  did  not  agree  it  was  to  be  rejected  :  which 
was  the  sum  of  the  first  and  second  theses  of  Franciscus  David,1  in  oppo 
sition  to  which  Socinus  gave  in  his  judgment  in  certain  antitheses  to 
Christopher  Barthoracus,  prince  of  Transylvania,  who  had  then  cast  David 
into  prison  for  his  blasphemy.2 

To  give  a  little  account,  by  the  way,  of  the  end  of  this  man,  with  his 
contempt  of  the  Lord  Jesus  : — 

In  the  year  1579,  in  the  beginning  of  the  month  of  June,  he  was  cast 
into  prison  by  the  prince  of  Transylvania,  and  lived  until  the  end  of  No 
vember.8  That  he  was  cast  into  prison  by  the  instigation  of  Socinus  him 
self  and  Blandrata,  the  testimonies  are  beyond  exception  ;  for  this  is  not 
only  recorded  by  Bellarmine  and  others  of  the  Papists  (to  whose  asser 
tions,  concerning  any  adversary  with  whom  they  have  to  do,  I  confess 
much  credit  is  not  to  be  given),  but  by  others  also  of  unquestionable  autho 
rity.*  This,  indeed,  Socinus  denies,  and  would  willingly  impose  the 
odium  of  it  upon  others  ;fi  but  the  truth  is,  considering  the  keenness  and 
wrath  of  the  man's  spirit,  and  the  thoughts  he  had  of  this  miserable 
wretch,6  it  is  more  than  probable  that  he  was  instrumental  towards  his 
death.  The  like  apology  does  Smalcius  make  in  his  answer  to  Franzius 
about  the  carriage  of  the  Samosatenians  in  that  business  of  Franciscus 
David;  where  they  accused  one  another  of  craft,  treachery,  bloody  cruelty, 
treason.7  Being  cast  into  prison,  the  miserable  creature  fell  into  a  fre- 
netical  distemper,  through  the  revenging  hand  of  God  upon  him,  as  So 
cinus  confesseth  himself.8  In  this  miserable  condition  the  devils  (saith  the 
historian)  appeared  unto  him ;  whereupon  he  cried  out,  "  Behold  who  ex 
pect  me  their  companion  in  my  journey,"8  whether  really,  or  in  his  vexed, 
distempered  imagination,  disordered  by  his  despairing  mind,  I  determine 

1 "  Homo  ille  Jes.  Nazarenus  qui  Christus  appellatur,  non  per  spiritum  propheticum, 
sed  per  Spiritum  Sanctum  locutus  est ;  id  est,  quamvis  a  Deo  legatus  fuerit,  non  tamen 
qusecunque  vcrha  ex  ipsius  Dei  ore  provenisse  censenda  sunt.  2.  Hinc  fit  ut  illius  et 
apostolorum  ejus  verba,  ad  Mosaicae  legis  et  aliorum  propheticorum  oraculorum  normam 
expendenda  sint,  et  siquid  contrarium  yel  diversum  ab  his  in  illis  reperitur,  aut  reperiri 
videtur.  id  aut  rejiciendum,  aut  certe  ita  interpretandum  sit,  ut  cum  Mosis  et  prophet- 
arum  doctrina  consentiat  quas  sola  morum  et  divini  cultus  regula  est." 

3  "  Theses  quibus  Francisci  Davidis  sententia  de  Christ!  munere  explicatur  una  cum 
antithesibus  ecclesiae  a  Spcino  conscriptis,  et  illustrissimo  Transylvaniae  principi  Chris- 
tophero  Barthoraep  oblatis." 

s "  Certum  est  ilium  in  ipso  initio  mensis  Junii  career!  inclusum  fuisse,  et  yixisse 
usque  ad  mensem  Novembris,  nisi  vehementer  fallor,  quo  extinctus  est." — Socin.  ad 
Weik.  cap.  ii.  p.  44. 

4  "  Illud  yero  notandum,  quo_d  procurantibus  Georgio  Blandrata  et  Fausto  Socino,  in 
Transylvania  exuHbus,  Franciscus  David  morti  traditus  fuit."— Adrian.  Regen.  Hist. 
Eccles.  Slavon.  lib.  i.  p;  90. 

*  "  Quod  si  Weikus  intelligit  damnandi  verbo  nostros  ministros  censuisse  ilium  aliqua 
pcena  afficiendum,  aut  vult  fallere,  aut  egregie  fallitur :  nam  certum  est,  in  judicio  illo, 
cum  minister  quidam  Calvinianus  Christophero  Principi,  qui  toti  action!  interfuit,  et 
pnefuit,  satis  longa  oratione  persuasisset,  ut  talem  hominem  e  medio  tolleret,  minitans 
iram  Dei  nisi  id  fecisset,  ministros  nostros  proprius  ad  ipsum  principem  accedentes, 
reverenter  illi  supplicasse,  ut  miseri  hominis  misereri  vellet,  et  clementem  et  benignum 
se  erga  ilium  praebere."— Socin.  ad  Weik.  cap.  ii.  p.  47. 

;  "  Imo  plusquam  haereticum  eum  (ecclesiae  nostrae)  judicaverunt,  nam  talem  homi 
nem  indignum  Christiano  nomine  esse  dixerunt ;  quippe  qui  Christo  invocationis  cultum 
prorsus  dctrahendo,  et  eum  curam  ecclesiae  gerere  negando,  simul  reipsa  negaret  eum 
esse  Christum." — Idem  ubi  supra. 

'  Kxemplum  denique  affert  nostrorum  (thes.  108),  quomodo  se  gesserint  in  Transyl- 
vama,  in  negotio  Francisci  Davidis :  quomodo  semetipsos  in  actu  illo  inter  se  reos  agant 
vafntias,  crudehtatis  sanguinariae,  proditionis,"  etc.— Smalc.  Refuta  Thes  de  Hypo- 
crit.  Disp.  ix.  p.  298. 

8  "  De  phrenesi  ista  in  quam  incident,  aliquid  sane  auditum  est,  non  tantum  biduo 
ante  mortem  sed  pluribus  diebus."— Socin.  ubi  supra. 

'  "Ecce  qui  me  comitem  itineris  expectant."— Flor.  Raemund,  lib.  iv  cap.  xii 


not ;  but  most  certain  it  is  that  in  that  condition  he  expired,  not  in  tha 
year  1580,  as  Bellarmine,  Weik,  Raemundus,  and  some  of  ours  from  them, 
inform  us,  but  one  year  sooner,  as  he  assures  us  who  best  knew.1  And 
the  consideration  of  this  man's  desperate  apostasy  and  his  companions' 
might  be  one  cause  that  about  this  time  sundry  of  the  Antitrinitarians 
were  converted,  amongst  whom  was  Daniel  Bielenscius,  a  man  afterward 
of  good  esteem.2 

But  neither  yet  did  Satan  stop  here,  but  improved  the  advantage  given 
him  by  these  men  to  the  utter  denying  of  Jesus  Christ :  for  unto  the  prin 
ciple  of  Christ's  being  not  God,  adding  another  of  the  same  nature,  that 
the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament  were  all  concerning  temporal  things, 
some  amongst  them  at  length  concluded  that  there  was  no  promise  of  any 
such  person  as  Jesus  Christ  in  the  whole  Old  Testament ;  that  the  Messiah 
or  king  promised  was  only  a  king  promised  to  the  Jews,  that  they  should 
have  after  the  captivity,  in  case  they  did  not  offend  but  walk  with  God. 
"  The  kingdom,"  say  they,  "  promised  in  the  Old  Testament,  is  a  kingdom 
of  this  world  only ;  but  the  kingdom  which  you  assert  to  belong  to  Jesus 
of  Nazareth  was  a  kingdom  not  of  this  world,  a  heavenly  kingdom,  and 
so,  consequently,  not  promised  of  God  or  from  God;"3  and  therefore  with 
him  they  would  not  have  aught  to  do.  This  was  the  argument  of  Martin 
Seidelius,  in  his  epistle  to  Socinus  and  his  companions. 

What  advantage  is  given  to  the  like  blasphemous  imaginations  with  this, 
by  such  Judaizing  annotations  on  the  Old  Testament  as  those  of  Grotius, 
time  will  evidence.  Now,  because  this  man's  creed  is  such  as  is  not  to  be 
paralleled,  perhaps  some  may  be  contented  to  take  it  in  his  own  words, 
which  are  as  follow : — 

"  Caeterum  ut  sciatis  cujus  sim  religionis,  quamvis  id  scripto  meo  quod 
habetis  ostenderim,  tamen  hie  breviter  repetam.  Et  primum  quidem  doc- 
trina  de  Messia,  seu  rege  illo  promisso,  ad  meam  religionem  nihil  pertinet : 
nam  rex  ille  tantum  Judseis  promissus  erat,  sicut  et  bona  ilia  Canaan.  Sic 
etiam  circumcisio,  sacrificia,  et  reliquse  ceremonise  Mosis  ad  me  non  perti 
nent,  sed  tantum  populo  Judaico  promissa,  data,  et  mandata  sunt.  Neque 
ista  fuerunt  cultus  Dei  apud  Judaeos,  sed  inserviebant  cultui  divino,  et  ad 
cultum  divinum  deducebant  Judseos.  Verus  autem  cultus  Dei  quern  meam 
religionem  appello,  est  decalogus,  qui  est  aeterna,  et  immutabilis  voluntas 
Dei ;  qui  decalogus  ideo  ad  me  pertinet,  quia  etiam  mihi  &  Deo  datus  est, 
non  quidem  per  vocem  sonantem  de  crelo,  sicut  populo  Judaico,  at  per 
creationem  insita  est  menti  meae ;  quia  autem  insitus  decalogus,  per  cor- 
ruptionem  naturae  humanae  et  pravis  consuetudinibus,  aliqua  ex  parte  ob- 
scuratus  est,  ideo  ad  illustrandum  eum,  adhibeo  vocalem  decalogum,  qui 
vocalis  decalogus,  ideo  etiam  ad  me,  et  ad  omnes  populos  pertinet,  quia 
cum  insito  nobis  decalogo  consentit,  imo  idem  ille  decalogus  est.  Haec  est 

1  "  Manifesto  in  ep  sunt  decepti,  qui  hoc  anno  1580,  accidisse  scribunt,  cum  certissi- 
mum  sit  ea  facta  fuisse  uno  anno  ante,  hoc  est,  anno  1579." — Socin.  ad  Weik.  p.  44. 

*  "  Duces  hujus  agminis  Anabaptistici,  et  Antitrinitarii  erantGregorius  Paulus,  Daniel 
Bielenscius,  et  alii,  quorum  tandem  aliqui  fanatico  proposito  relicto,  ad  ecclesiam  evan- 
gelicam  redierunt,  ut  Daniel  Bielenscius,  qui  Cracoviae  omnium  suorum  errorum  publice 
pcenitentiam  egit,  ibidemque,  ecclesiaa  Dei  commode  praefuit." — Adrian.  Regen.  Hist. 
Eccles.  Slavon.  lib.  i.  p.  90. 

3  "  Ita  argumentor,  quoties  regnum  Davidi  usque  in  seculum  promissum  est,  tale  ne- 
cesse  fuit,  ut  posteri  ejus,  in  quibus  hsec  promissio  impleri  debebat,  haberent:  sed  reg 
num  mundanum  Davidi  usque  in  seculum  promissum  est,  ergo  regnum  mundanum  posteri 
Davidis  ut  haberent  necesse  est :  et  per  consequens,  rex  ille,  quern  prophette  ex  hac  pro- 
missione  post  captivitatem  Babylonicam  regnaturum  promiserunt,  perinde  ut  caeteri 
posteri  Davidis,  mundanum  regnum  debuit  habere.  Quod  quia  Jesus  ille  non  habuit 
{non  enim  regnavit  ut  David  et  posteri  ejus),  sed  dicitur  habere  cceleste  regnum,  quod  est 
diversum  a  mundano  regno ;  ergo  Jesus  ille  non  est  rex  quern  prophetse  promiserunt."— 
alartin.  Seidelius,  Ep.  1  ad  Sociu. 

VOL.  XII.  3 


mea  sententia  de  Messia,  seu  rege  illo  promisso,  et  h?ec  est  mea  religio,  quam 
coramvobis  ingenue  profiteer." — Martin.  Seidelius  Olaviensis  Silesius. 

To  this  issue  did  Satan  drive  the  Socinian  principles  in  this  man  and 
sundry  others,  even  to  a  full  and  peremptory  denial  of  the  Lord  that  bought 
them.  In  answering  this  man,  it  fell  out  with  Socinus  much  as  it  did  with 
him  in  his  disputation  with  Franken  about  the  adoration  and  invocation 
of  Jesus  Christ :  for  granting  Franken  that  Christ  was  but  a  mere  man,  he 
could  no  way  evade  his  inference  thence,  that  he  was  not  to  be  invocated ; 
so,  granting  Seidelius  that  the  promises  of  the  Old  Testament  were  all 
temporal,  he  could  not  maintain  against  him  that  Jesus  Christ,  whose  king 
dom  is  heavenly,  was  the  king  and  Messiah  therein  promised ;  for  Faustus 
hath  nothing  to  reply  but  that "  God  gives  more  than  he  promised,  of  which 
no  man  ought  to  complain."1  Not  observing  that  the  question  being  not 
about  the  faithfulness  of  God  in  his  promises,  but  about  the  thing  pro 
mised,  he  gave  away  the  whole  cause,  and  yielded  that  Christ  was  not 
indeed  the  king  and  Messiah  promised  in  the  Old  Testament. 

Of  an  alike  opinion  to  this  of  Seidelius  was  he  of  whom  we  spake  be 
fore,  Franciscus  David ;  who  as  to  the  kingdom  of  Christ  delivered  him 
self  to  this  purpose :  *'  That  he  was  appointed  to  be  a  king  of  the  Jews, 
and  that  God  sent  him  into  the  world  to  receive  his  kingdom,  which  was 
to  be  earthly  and  civil,  as  the  kingdoms  of  other  kings ;  but  the  Jews  re 
jected  him  and  slew  him,  contrary  to  the  purpose  of  God,  who  therefore 
took  him  from  them  and  placed  him  in  a  quiet  place,  where  he  is  not  at 

•  all  concerned  in  any  of  the  things  of  the  church,  but  is  there  in  God's  de- 

•  sign  a  king,  and  he  will  one  day  send  him  again  to  Jerusalem,  there  to 
take  upon  him  a  kingdom,  and  to  rule  as  the  kings  of  this  world  do  or 
have  done." — Thes.  Francisci  David  de  Adorat.  Jes.  Christi. 

The  reminding  of  these  abominations  gives  occasion,  by  the  way,  to 
complain  of  the  carnal  apprehensions  of  a  kingdom  of  Christ,  which  too  many 
amongst  ourselves  have  filled  their  thoughts  and  expectations  withal.  For 
my  part,  I  am  persuaded  that,  before  the  end  of  the  world,  the  Lord  Jesus, 
by  his  word  and  Spirit,  will  multiply  the  seed  of  Abraham  as  the  stars  of 
heaven,  bringing  into  one  fold  the  remnant  of  Israel  and  the  multitude  of 
the  Gentiles;  and  that  his  church  shall  have  peace,  after  he  hath  judged 
and  broken  the  stubborn  adversaries  thereof,  and  laid  the  kingdoms  of  the 
nations  in  a  useful  subserviency  to  his  interest  in  this  world;  and  that 
himself  will  reign  most  gloriously,  by  a  spirit  of  light,  truth,  love,  and  holi 
ness,  in  the  midst  of  them :  but  that  he  hath  a  kingdom  of  another  nature 
and  kind  to  set  up  in  the  world  than  that  heavenly  kingdom  which  he 
hath  peculiarly  exercised  ever  since  he  was  exalted  and  made  a  ruler  and 
a  saviour,  that  he  should  set  up  a  dominion  over  men  as  men,  and  rule, 
•either  himself  present  or  by  his  substitutes,  as  in  a  kingdom  of  this  world, 
•which  is  a  kingdom  neither  of  grace  nor  glory,  I  know  it  cannot  be  as- 
.serted  without  either  the  denial  of  his  kingdom  for  the  present,  or  that  he 
is  or  hitherto  hath  been  a  king  (which  was  the  blasphemy  of  Franciscus 
David  before  mentioned),  or  the  affirming  that  he  hath,  or  is  to  have,  upon 
the  promise  of  God,  two  kingdoms  of  several  sorts;  of  which  in  the  whole 
word  of  God  there  is  not  the  least  tittle. 

To  return :  about  the  end  of  the  year  1579.  Faustus  Socinus  left  Tran 
sylvania  and  went  into  Poland,  which  he  chose  for  the  stage  whereon  to 

1  "  Nam  quod  dicimus,  si  Deus  mundanum  regem  mundanumque  regnum  promisit, 
coelcstem  autem  regem,  cpeleste  regnum  reipsa  praestitit  plus  eum  pnestitisse  quam  pro- 
misent,  recte  omnino  dicimus,  nam  qui  plus  prsestat  quam  promisit,  suis  promissis  non 
modo  non  stetisse  sed  ea  etiam  cumulate  praestitisse  est  agnoscendus."— Socin  Ep.  ad 
Seidelium,  p.  20. 


act  his  design.1  In  -what  estate  and  condition  the  persons  in  Poland  and 
Lithuania  were  who  had  fallen  off  from  the  faith  of  the  holy  Trinity  was 
before  declared.  True  it  is,  that  before  the  coming  of  Socinus,  Blandrata, 
\>y  the  help  of  Franciscus  David,  had  brought  over  many  of  them  from 
Sabellianism,  and  Tritheism,  and  Arianism,  unto  Samosatenianism,  and  a 
full,  plain  denial  of  the  deity  of  Christ.2 

But  yet  with  that  Pelagian  doctrine  that  Socinus  came  furnished 
withal  unto  them,  they  were  utterly  unacquainted,  and  were  at  no  small 
difference,  many  of  them,  about  the  Deity.  The  condition  of  the  first 
man  to  be  mortal  and  obnoxious  to  death,  that  there  was  no  original  sin, 
that  Christ  was  not  a  high-priest  on  the  earth,  that  he  made  no  satisfaction 
for  sin,  that  we  are  not  justified  by  his  righteousness  but  our  own,  that  the 
wicked  shall  be  utterly  consumed  and  annihilated  at  the  last  day,  with  the 
rest  of  his  opinions,  which  afterward  he  divulged,  they  were  utterly 
strangers  unto ;  as  is  evident  from  the  contests  he  had  about  these  things 
with  some  of  them  in  their  synods,  and  by  writing,  especially  with 
Niemojevius,  one  of  the  chief  patrons  of  their  sect. 

In  this  condition  of  affairs,  the  man,  being  wise  and  subtile,  obtained  his 
purpose  by  the  ensuing  course  of  procedure : — 

1.  He  joined  himself  to  none  of  their  societies,  because,  being  divided 
amongst  themselves,  he  knew  that  by  adhering  to  any  one  professedly,  he 
should  engage  all  the  rest  against  him.  That  which  he  pretended  most 
to  favour,  and  for  whose  sake  he  underwent  some  contests,  was  the 
assembly  at  Eacovia,  which  at  first  was  collected  by  Gregorius  Paulus,  as 
hath  been  declared. 

From  these  his  pretence  for  abstaining  was,  their  rigid  injunction  of  all 
to  be  rebaptized  that  entered  into  their  fellowship  and  communion.  But 
he  who  made  it  his  design  to  gather  the  scattered  Antitrinitarians  into  a 
body  and  a  consistency  in  a  religion  among  themselves  saw  plainly  that 
the  rigid  insisting  upon  Anabaptism,  which  was  the  first  principle  of  some 
of  them,  would  certainly  keep  them  at  an  unreconcilable  distance.  Where 
fore  he  falls  upon  an  opinion  much  better  suited  to  his  design,  and  main 
tained  that  baptism  was  only  instituted  for  the  initiation  of  them  who 
from  any  other  false  religion  were  turned  to  the  religion  of  Christ ;  but 
that  it  belonged  not  to  Christian  societies,  nor  to  them  that  were  born  of 
Christian  parents,  and  had  never  been  of  any  other  profession  or  religion, 
though  they  might  use  it,  if  they  pleased,  as  an  indifferent  thing.  And 
therefore  he  refused  to  join  himself  with  the  Eacovians,  unless  upon  this 
principle,  that  they  would  desist  for  the  time  to  come  from  requiring  any 
to  be  baptized  that  should  join  with  them.  In  a  short  tune  he  divided 
that  meeting  by  this  opinion,  and  at  length  utterly  dissolved  them,  as  to 
their  old  principles  they  first  consented  unto,  and  built  the  remainder  of 
them,  by  the  hand  of  Valentinus  Smalcius,  into  his  own  mould  and  frame. 

The  author  of  his  life  sets  it  forth  as  a  great  trial  of  his  prudence,  piety, 
and  patience,  that  he  was  repulsed  from  the  society  at  Eacovia,  and  that 
with  ignominy;3  when  the  truth  is,  he  absolutely  refused  to  join  with  them, 
unless  they  would  at  once  renounce  their  own  principles  and  subscribe  to 

enim  liianunua  in  iransyivamtuu  reujeua  in  queuuuu 
V.13V.UU1  i'aviu,  utiuiu  uiagis,  quam  superiores  illi  ut  aiunt  providum." — Beza,  Ep.  ^. 

3 "  Ecclesiis  rolonicis,  quse  solnm  Patrem  Domini  Jesu  summum  Deum  agnoscunt, 
publice  adjungi  ambivit,  sed  satis  acerbe  atque  diu  repulsam_passus  est,  qua  tamen 
ignominia  minime  accensus,  vir,  non  tarn  indole  quam  animi  institute,  ad  patientiam 
compositus,  nulla  uiiquam  alienati  animi  vestigia  dedit.." — Vita  Faust.  Socin. 


his;  which  is  as  hard  a  condition  as  can  be  put  upon  any  perfectly  con 
quered  enemy.  This  himself  delivers  at  large  on  sundry  occasions, 
especially  insisting  on  and  debating  that  business  in  his  epistles  to  Simon 
Ronembergius  and  to  Sophia  Siemichovia.  On  this  score  did  he  write  his 
disputation  "  De  Baptismo  AqufE,"  with  the  vindication  of  it  from  the  ani 
madversions  of  A.  D.  (whom  I  suppose  to  be  Andrew  Dudithius),  and  of 
M.  C.,  endeavouring  with  all  his  strength  to  prove  that  baptism  is  not 
an  ordinance  appointed  for  the  use  of  Christians  or  their  children,  but 
only  for  such  as  were  converted  from  Paganism  or  Mohammedanism;  and 
this  he  did  in  the  year  1580,  two  years  after  his  coming  into  Poland,  as  he 
declares  by  the  date  of  the  disputation  from  Cracovia,  at  the  close  thereof. 
And  in  this  persuasion  he  was  so  fixed,  and  laid  such  weight  upon  it,  that 
after  he  had  once  before  broken  the  assembly  at  Racovia,  in  his  old  days 
he  encourages  Valentinus  Smalcius,1  then  their  teacher,  to  break  them 
again,  because  some  of  them  tenaciously  held  their  opinion;  and  for  those 
who,  as  Smalcius  informed  him,  would  thereupon  fall  off  to  the  reformed 
churches,  he  bids  them  go,  and  a  good  riddance  of  them.  By  this  means, 
I  say,  he  utterly  broke  up,  and  divided,  and  dissolved  the  meeting  at 
Racovia,  which  was  collected  upon  the  principles  before  mentioned,  that 
there  remained  none  abiding  to  their  first  engagement  but  a  few  old  women, 
as  Squarcialupus2  tells  him,  and  as  himself  confesses  in  his  answer  for  them 
to  Palaeologus.8  By  this  course  of  behaviour,  the  man  had  these  two 
advantages:— (1.)  He  kept  fair  with  all  parties  amongst  them,  and  pro 
voked  not  any  by  joining  with  them  with  whom  they  could  not  agree  ;  so 
that  all  parties  looked  on  him  as  their  own,  and  were  ready  to  make  him 
the  umpire  of  all  their  differences,  by  which  he  had  no  small  advantage  of 
working  them  all  to  his  own  principles.  (2.)  He  was  less  exposed  to  the 
fury  of  the  Papists,  which  he  greatly  feared  (loving  well  the  things  of  this 
world),  than  he  would  have  been  had  he  joined  himself  to  any  visible 
church  profession ;  and,  indeed,  his  privacy  of  living  was  a  great  means -of 
his  security. 

2.  His  second  great  advantage  was  that  he  was  a  scholar,  and  was  able 
to  defend  and  countenance  them  against  their  opposers,  the  most  of  them 
being  miserably  weak  and  unlearned.  One  of  their  best  defensatives,  before 
his  joining  with  them,  was  a  clamour  against  logic  and  learning,  as  himself 
confesseth  in  some  of  his  epistles.  Now,  this  is  not  only  evident  by  experi 
ence,  but  the  nature  of  the  thing  itself  makes  it  manifest  that  so  it  will 
be :  whereas  men  of  low  and  weak  abilities  fall  into  by-persuasions  in 
religion,  as  they  generally  at  first  prevail  by  clamours  and  all  sorts  of  re 
proaches  cast  on  learning  and  learned  men,  yet  if  God  in  his  providence 
at  any  time,  to  heighten  the  temptation,  suffer  any  person  of  learning  and 
ability  to  fall  in  amongst  and  with  them,  he  is  presently  their  head  and 

1 "  Nam  quod  mihi  objicis  me  communionem  cum  fratribus,  et  Christi  fidelibus  sper- 
nere,  nee  curare  ut  cum  ipsis  ccenam  Domini  celebrem,  respondeo.  me  postquam  in 
folomam  veni,  nihil  antiquius  habuisse,  quam  ut  me  quam  maxime  fratribus  conjun- 
gerem,  licet  invemssem  illos  in  non  parvis  religionis  nostrse  capitibus,  a  me  diversura 
sentire;  quemadmodum  multi  hodieque  sentiunt :  quod  si  nihilominus  aquse  baptismum 
una  cum  ilhs  non  accipio,  hoc  praeterea  fit,  quia  id  bona  conscientia  facere  nequeo. 
nisi  publice  ante  protestor,  me  non  quod  censeam  baptismum  aquse  mihi  meique 
simi 11  bus,  ullo  modo  necessarium  esse,  etc."— Ep.  ad  Sophiam  Siemichoviam,  feminam 
nobilem.— Ep.  11  ad  Valent,  Smalc.  anno  1604. 

* "  Dico  secessionem  Racoviensium  ac  delirium,  esse  ab  ecclesia  ratione  seiungen- 
lum,  nisi  velis  conciliabula  quseque  amentium  anicularum  partes  ecclesias  Christiana} 
aut  ecclesiam  appellare."-Mar.  Squarcialup.  Ep.  ad  Faust.  Socin.  p.  8 

Hucaccedit,  quod  Racovienses  isti,  sive  ccetus  Racovien sis,  quern  tu  petis  atque 
oppugnas,  vel  non  amphus  extat,  vel  ita  hodie  mutatus  est,  et  in  aliam  quodammodo 
formam  versus,  ut  agnosci  uon  queat.  "-Socin.  Pnefat.  ad  Paiajolog. 


ruler  without  control.  Some  testimony  hereof  our  own  days  have  afforded, 
and  I  wish  we  may  not  have  more  examples  given  us.  Now,  how  far  he 
availed  himself  of  this  advantage,  the  consideration  of  them  with  whom 
he  had  to  do,  of  the  esteem  they  had  of  his  abilities,  and  the  service  he 
did  them  thereby,  will  acquaint  us. 

[As]  for  the  leaders  of  them,  they  were  for  the  most  part  unlearned,  and 
so  unable  to  defend  their  opinions  in  any  measure  against  a  skilful  adver 
sary.  Blandrata,  their  great  patron,  was  not  able  to  express  himself  in 
Latin,  but  by  the  help  of  Statorius,  who  had  some  learning,  but  no 
judgment;1  and  therefore,  upon  his  difference  with  Franciscus  David  in 
Transylvania,'  he  was  forced  to  send  for  Socinus  out  of  Helvetia  to 
manage  the  disputation  with  him.  And  what  kind  of  cattle  those  were 
with  whom  he  had  to  do  at  Cracovia  as  well  as  Eacovia,  is  manifest  from 
the  epistle  of  Simon  Eonembergius,  one  of  the  leaders  and  elders  of  that 
which  they  called  their  "  church,"  which  is  printed,  with  Socinus'  answer 
unto  it.  I  do  not  know  that  ever  in  my  life  I  saw,  for  matter  and 
form,  sense  and  language,  any  thing  so  simple  and  foolish,  so  ridiculously 
senseless  and  incoherent,  unless  it  were  one  or  two  in  our  own  days, 
which  with  this  deserve  an  eminent  place  "  inter  epistolas  obscurorum 
virorum."  And  therefore  Socinus  justly  feared  that  his  party  would  have 
the  worst  in  disputes,  as  he  acknowledges  it  befell  Licinius  in  his  con 
ference  with  Smiglecius  at  Novograde,2  and  could  not  believe  Ostorodius 
that  he  had  such  success  as  he  boasted  in  Germany  with  Fabritius  ;s  and 
tells  us  himself  a  story  of  some  pastors  of  their  churches  in  Lithuania, 
who  were  so  ignorant  and  simple  that  they  knew  not  that  Christ  was  to 
be  worshipped.*  What  a  facile  thing  it  was  for  a  man  of  his  parts,  abilities, 
and  learning,  to  obtain  a  kingdom  amongst  such  as  these  is  easily  guessed. 
He  complains,  indeed,  of  his  own  lost  time  in  his  young  days,  by  the 
instigation  of  the  devil,  and  says  that  it  made  him  weary  of  his  life  to 
think  of  it,  when  he  had  once  set  up  his  thoughts  in  seeking  honour  and 
glory  by  being  the  head  and  master  of  a  sect,  as  Ignatius  the  father  of 
the  Jesuits  did5  (with  whom,  as  to  this  purpose,  he  is  compared  all  along 
by  the  gentleman  that  wrote  his  life) ;  yet  it  is  evident  that  his  learning 
and  abilities  were  such  as  easily  promoted  him  to  the  dictatorship  among 
them  with  whom  he  had  to  do. 

It  may,  then,  be  easily  imagined  what  kind  of  esteem  such  men  as  those 
would  have  of  so  great  an  ornament  and  glory  of  their  religion,  who  at 
least  was  with  them  in  that  wherein  they  dissented  from  the  rest  of  Christians. 

1  "  Petro  Statorio  operam  omnem  suam  fucandis  barbarissimi  scriptoris  Blandrata} 
commentis  navante." — Beza. 

2  "  Dolerem  equidem  mirum  in  modum  si  disputatiq  ista  sic  habita  fuisset,  ut  adversarii 
affirmant :  suspicor  tamen  nihilominus,  quatenus  disputationem  ab  ipsis  editam  per- 
currendo  animadvertere  ac  consequi  conjectura  potui,  Licinii  antagonistam  arte  dispu- 
tandi  et  ipso  superiorem  esse,  et  id  in  ista  ipsa  disputatione  facile  plerisque  constitisse : 
nam  etsi  (ni  fallor)  Licinius  noster  neutiquam  in  ea  hseresi  est,  in  qua  non  pauci  ex 
nostris  sunt,  non  esse  Christiano  homini  dandam  operam  dialecticse,"  etc.— Ep.  ad  Bal- 
cerovicium,  p.  358. 

3  "  Vpidpvius  Ostorodi  comes  ea  ad  me  scribit,  quae  vix  mihi  permittunt  ut  exitum 
disputationis  illius  eum  fuisse  credam,  quern  ipse  Ostorodius  ad  me  scripsit." — Ep.  ad 
Valent.  Smalc.  quarta,  p.  522. 

4  "  Quod  totum  fere  pondus  illius  disputationis,  adversus  eos  qui  Christum  adhuc 
ignorare  dici  possunt,  sustinueris,  yehementer  tibi  gratulor :  nihil  mihi  novum  fuit,  ex 
narratione  ista  perciptre,  pastores  illos  Lithuanicos  ab  ejusmodi  ignoratioiie  minime  li- 
beros  deprehensos  fuisse." — Ep.  5  ad  Smalc. 

8  "  Me  imitari  noli,  qui  nescio  quo  malo  genio  ductore,  cum  jam  divinse  veritatis 
fontes  degustassem,  ita  sum  abreptus,  ut  majorem  et  potiorem  juventutis  mese  partem, 
inanibus  quibusdam  aliis  studiis,  imo  inertice  atque  otio  dederim,  quod  cum  mecum  ipse 
repute,  reputo  autem  saepissime,  tanto  dolore  afficior,  ut  me  vivere  quodam  modo  pi- 
geat." — Ep.  ad  Smalc.  p.  513. 


Not  only  after  his  death,  when  they  set  him  forth  as  the  most  incom 
parable  man  of  his  time,  but  in  his  own  life  and  to  himself,  as  I  know  not 
what  excellent  person,1 — that  he  had  a  mind  suited  for  the  investigation 
of  truth,  was  a  philosopher,  an  excellent  orator,  an  eminent  divine,  that 
for  the  Latin  tongue  especially  he  might  contend  with  any  of  the  great 
wits  of  Europe,  they  told  him  to  his  face;  such  thoughts  had  they 
generally  of  him.  It  is,  then,  no  wonder  they  gave  themselves  up  to  his 
guidance.  Hence  Smalcius  wrote  unto  him  to  consult  about  the  propriety 
of  the  Latin  tongue,  and  in  his  answer  to  him  he  excuses  it  as  a  great 
crime  that  he  had  used  a  reciprocal  relative  where  there  was  no  occasion 
for  it.2 

And  to  make  it  more  evident  how  they  depended  on  him,  on  this 
account  of  his  ability  for  instructions,  when  he  had  told  Ostorodius  an 
answer  to  an  objection  of  the  Papists,  the  man  having  afterward  forgot  it, 
sends  to  him  again  to  have  his  lesson  over  once  more,  that  he  might  re 
member  it.8 

And  therefore,  as  if  he  had  been  to  deal  with  school-boys,  he  would 
tell  his  chief  companions  that  he  had  found  out  and  discovered  such  or 
such  a  thing  in  religion,  but  would  not  tell  them  until  they  had  tried 
themselves,  and  therefore  was  afraid  lest  he  should  through  unawares 
have  told  it  to  any  of  them  ;*  upon  one  of  which  adventures,  Ostorodius 
making  bold  to  give  in  his  conception,  he  does  little  better  than  tell  him 
he  is  a  blockhead.6  Being  in  this  repute  amongst  them,  and  exercising 
such  a  dominion  in  point  of  abilities  and  learning,  to  prevail  the  more 
upon  them,  he  was  perpetually  ready  to  undertake  their  quarrels,  which 
themselves  were  not  able  with  any  colour  to  maintain.  Hence  most  of 
his  books  were  written,  and  his  disputations  engaged  in,  upon  the  desire 
of  one  assembly,  synod,  or  company  of  them  or  other,  as  I  could  easily 
manifest  by  particular  instances.  And  by  this  means  got  he  no  small 
advantage  to  insinuate  his  own  principles ;  for  whereas  the  men  greedily 
looked  after  and  freely  entertained  the  things  which  were  professedly 
written  in  their  defence,  he  always  wrought  in  together  therewith  some 
thing  of  his  own  peculiar  heresy,  that  poison  might  be  taken  down  with 
that  which  was  most  pleasing.  Some  of  the  wisest  of  them,  indeed,  as 
Niemojevius,  discovered  the  fraud,  who,  upon  his  answer  to  Andrjeus 
Yolanus,  commending  what  he  had  written  against  the  deity  of  Christ, 
which  they  employed  him  in,  falls  foul  upon  him  for  his  delivering  in  the 
same  treatise  that  Christ  was  not  a  priest  whilst  he  was  upon  the  earth  ;a 

1  "  Ad  te  quod  attinet,  animo  es  tu  quidem  ad  omnem  doctringe  rationem,  ac  vcritatis 
investigationem  nato,  magna  rerum  sopliisticarum  cognitio,  orator  summus,  et  theologus 
insignis,  linguas  tenes  maxime  Latinam,  ut  possis  cum  prsecipuis  totius  Europss  ingeniis 
certare."— Marcel.  Squarcialup.  Ep.  ad.  Faust.  Socin. 

"  Aliud  interim  in  Latina  lingua  erratum,  gravius  quam  istud  sit,  a  me  est  cnmmis- 
surn,  quod  scilicet  relative  reciproco  ubi  nullus  erat  locus  usus  sum."— Ep.  4  ad  Valent. 
Smalc.  p.  521. 

"  Memini  te  mihi  hujus  rei  solutionem  cum  esses  Racovise  afierro,  scd  QUJB  mea  est 
tarditas,  vel  potius  stupiditas,  non  bene  illius  recorder."— Ostorod.  Ep.  ad  Faust.  Socin 
p.  456. 

*  "  Tibi  significo  me  ni  fallor  invenisse  viam  quomodo  verum  esse  possit,  quod  Chria- 
tus  plane  hbere  et  citra  omnem  necessitatcm  Deo  perfectissime  obeciiret,  et  tamen  ne- 
cessarium  omnmo  fuerit  ut  sic  obediret ;  qua;nam  ista  via  sit,  nisi  earn  ipse  per  te  (ut 
plane  spero)  mveneris,  postea  tibi  aperiam :  TO!O  enim  prius  tuum  hoc  in  re  et  Statorii 
ingemum  ezpenn,  tametsi  vereor  ne  jam  earn  illi  indicaverim."— En.  4  ad  Ostorod. 
p.  472. 

«  "  De  quaestione  tibi  proposita  non  bene  conjecisti,  nee  quam  affers  solutionem  ea 
probari  ullo  modo  potest."— Ep.  6  ad  Ostorod.  p.  473. 

«  "  Perlecto  scripto  tuo  contra  Volanum  animadvert!  argumenta  ejus  satis  accurate 
a  te  retutata,  locaque  scripturoe  pleraque  examinata,  ac  elucidata,  verum  non  sine 
nuerore  (ne  quid  gravius  addarn)  incidi  inter  legendum  in  quoddam  paradoxon,  Scripturse 


which  one  abominable  figment  lies  at  the  bottom  of  his  whole  doctrine  of 
the  justification  of  a  sinner.  The  case  is  the  same  about  his  judgment 
concerning  the  invocation  of  Christ,  which  was,  "  That  we  might  do  it,  but 
it  was  not  necessary  from  any  precept  or  otherwise  that  so  we  should  do." 

And  this  was  nine  years  after  his  coming  into  Poland,  as  appears  from 
the  date  of  that  epistle;  so  long  was  he  in  getting  his  opinions  to  be 
entertained  among  his  friends.  But  though  this  man  were  a  little  wary, 
and  held  out  some  opposition  unto  him,  yet  multitudes  of  them  were  taken 
with  this  snare,  and  freely  drank  down  the  poison  they  loathed,  being 
tempered  with  that  which  they  had  a  better  liking  to.  But  this  being 
discovered,  he  let  the  rest  of  them  know  that  though  he  was  entreated  to 
write  that  book  by  the  Eacovians,  and  did  it  in  their  name,1  yet,  because  he 
had  published  somewhat  of  his  own  private  opinions  therein,  they  might 
if  they  pleased  deny,  yea,  and  forswear,  that  they  were  written  by  their 

And  this  was  with  respect  to  his  doctrine  about  the  satisfaction  of  Christ^ 
which,  as  he  says,  he  heard  they  were  coming  over  unto  ;  and  it  is  evi 
dent  from  what  he  writes  elsewhere  to  Balcerovicius  that  he  begged  this 
employment  of  writing  against  Volanus,  it  being  agreed  by  them  that  he 
should  write  nothing  but  by  public  consent,  because  of  the  novelties  which 
he  broached  every  day.  By  this  readiness  to  appear  and  write  in  their 
defence,  and  so  commending  his  writing  to  them  on  that  account,  it  is 
incredible  how  he  got  ground  upon  them,  and  won  them  over  daily  to  the 
residue  of  his  abominations,  which  they  had  not  received. 

3.  To  these  add,  as  another  advantage  to  win  upon  that  people,  the 
course  he  had  fixed  on  in  reference  to  others ;  which  was,  to  own  as  his, 
and  of  his  party  of  the  church,  all  persons  ivhatever  that,  on  any  pretence 
whatever,  opposed  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  and  forsook  the  reformed  church. 
Hence  he  dealt  with  men  as  his  brethren,  friends,  and  companions,  who 
scarcely  retained  any  thing  of  Christians,  some  nothing  at  all ;  as  Martin 
Seidelius,  who  denied  Christ ;  with  Philip  Buccel,  who  denied  all  differ 
ence  of  good  and  evil  in  the  actions  of  men ;  with  Eramus  Johannes,  an 
Arian ;  with  Matthias  Radecius,  who  denied  that  any  could  believe  in 
Christ  without  new  apostles  ; — indeed,  with  all  or  any  sorts  of  men  what 
ever  that  would  but  join  with  him,  or  did  consent  unto  the  opposition  of 
the  deity  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  was  the  principal  work  which 
he  engaged  in. 

4.  Unto  these  and  the  like  advantages  the  man  added  all  the  arts  and 
subtilties,  all  the  diligence  and  industry,  that  were  any  way  tending  to  his  end. 
Some  of  his  artifices  and  insinuations,  indeed,  were  admirable,  though  to 
them  who  now  review  them  in  cold  blood,  without  recalling  to  mind  the 
then  state  of  things,  they  may  seem  of  another  complexion.2 

By  these  and  the  like  means,  though  he  once  despaired  of  ever  getting 
his  opinions  received  amongst  them,  as  he  professeth,  yet  in  the  long  con 
tinuance  of  twenty-four  years  (so  long  he  lived  in  Poland),  with  the  help  of 
Valentinus  Smalcius,  Volkelius,  and  some  few  others,  who  wholly  fell  in 

sacrse  contrarium  ac  plane  horrendum,  dum  Christum  in  morte  sua  sive  in  cruce,  sacri- 
ficium  obtulisse  pernegas,  miror  quid  tibi  in  mentem  venerit,  ut  tarn  confidenter  (ne 

rsenesin  Andraj  Volani  responderem,  volui  ut  si  quid  in  hac  responsione  vobis  minus 
recte  dictum  videretur,  non  bona  conscientia  tantum,  sed  jure  etiam,  earn  semper  eju- 
rare  possetia" — Ep.  ad  Mar.  BalceroVicium,  p.  336. 

...2  "  Spero  fore,  ut,  si  quid  ilium  mecum  sentire  vetet  intellexero,  facile  viam  inveniam 
eum  in  meam  sententiam  pertrahendi.".— Ep.  2  ad  Balcerovicium,  .  .. 


with  him,  he  at  length  brought  them  all  into  subjection  to  himself,  and  got 
all  his  opinions  enthroned,  and  his  practice  taken  almost  for  a  rule  ;  so  that 
whereas  in  former  days  they  accused  him  for  a  covetous  wretch,  one  that 
did  nothing  but  give  his  mind  to  scrape  up  money,  and  were  professedly 
offended  with  his  putting  money  to  usury,1  for  his  full  justification,  Ostoro- 
dius  and  Voidovius,  in  the  close  of  the  compendium  of  their  religion  which 
they  brought  into  Holland,  profess  that  their  "  churches  did  not  condemn 
usury,  so  that  it  were  exercised  with  moderation  and  without  oppression."2 

I  thought  to  have  added  a  farther  account,  in  particular,  of  the  man's 
craft  and  subtilty;  of  his  several  ways  for  the  instilling  of  his  principles 
and  opinions ;  of  his  personal  temper,  wrath,  and  anger,  and  multiplying 
of  words  in  disputes ;  of  the  foils  he  received  in  sundry  disputations  with 
men  of  his  own  antitrinitarian  infidelity;  of  his  aim  at  glory  and  renown, 
expressed  by  the  Polonian  gentleman  who  wrote  his  life ;  his  losses  and 
troubles,  which  were  not  many, — with  all  which,  and  the  like  concern 
ments  of  the  man  and  his  business  in  that  generation,  by  the  perusal 
of  all  that  he  wrote,  and  of  much  that  hath  been  written  against  him, 
with  what  is  extant  of  the  conferences  and  disputations,  synods  and 
assemblies  of  those  days,  I  have  some  little  acquaintance ; — but  being  not 
convinced  of  much  usefulness  in  my  so  doing,  I  shall  willingly  spare  my 
labour.  Thus  much  was  necessary,  that  we  might  know  the  men  arid  their 
conversation  who  have  caused  so  much  trouble  to  the  Christian  world ;  in 
which  work,  having  the  assistance  of  that  atheism  and  those  corrupted 
principles  which  are  in  the  hearts  of  all  by  nature,  without  the  infinite 
rich  mercy  of  God  sparing  a  sinful  world  as  to  this  judgment,  for  his 
elect's  sake,  they  will  undoubtedly  proceed. 

Leaving  him,  then,  in  the  possession  of  his  conquest,  Tritheists,  Sabel- 
lians,  Arians,  Eunomians,  with  the  followers  of  Francis  David,  being  all 
lost  and  sunk,  and  Socinians  standing  up  in  the  room  of  them  all,  looking 
a  little  upon  what  ensued,  I  shall  draw  from  the  consideration  of  the  per 
sons  to  their  doctrines,  as  at  first  proposed. 

After  the  death  of  Socinus,  his  cause  was  strongly  carried  on  by  those 
whom  in  his  life  he  had  formed  to  his  own  mind  and  judgment ;  among 
whom  Valentinus  Smalcius,  Hieronymus  Moscorovius,  Johannes  Volkelius, 
Christopherus  Ostorodius,  were  the  chief.  To  Smalcius  he  wrote  eleven 
epistles,  that  are  extant,  professing  his  great  expectations  of  him,  extolling 
his  learning  and  prudence.  He  afterward  wrote  the  Racovian  Catechism, 
compiling  it  out  of  Socinus'  works  ;  many  answers  and  replies  to  and  with 
Smiglecius  the  Jesuit,  and  Franzius  the  Lutheran  ;  a  book  of  the  divinity 
of  Christ,  with  sundry  others ;  and  was  a  kind  of  professor  among  them 
at  Racovia.  The  writings  of  the  rest  of  them  are  also  extant.  To  him 
succeeded  Crellius,  a  roan  of  more  learning  and  modesty  than  Smalcius, 
and  of  great  industry  for  the  defence  of  his  heresy.  His  defence  of 
Socinus  against  Grotius'  treatise,  "  De  Causis  Mortis  Christi,  de  Effectu 
SS.,"  his  comments  and  ethics,  declare  his  abilities  and  industry  in  his  way. 
After  him  arose  Jonas  Schlichtingius,  a  man  no  whit  behind  any  of  the 
rest  for  learning  and  diligence,  as  in  his  comments  and  disputations  against 
Meisnerus  is  evident.  As  the  report  is,  he  was  burned  by  the  procure 
ment  of  the  Jesuits,  some  four  years  ago,  that  they  might  be  sure  to  have 
the  blood  of  all  sorts  of  men  found  upon  them.  What  advantage  they 

1  "  Aliqui  fratrum  putant  consrerendis  pecuniis  me  nunc  prorsus  intentum  esse." — Ep. 
*sd  Eliam  Arcistrium,  p.  407.  Vide  Ep.  ad  Christoph.  Morstinum.  pp.  503-505. 

3  "  Non  simpliciter  usuram  damnant :  modo  sequitatis  et  charitatis  regula  non  Yiole- 
tur."— Compend.  Religionis  Ostorod.  et  Voidovii. 


have  obtained  thereby  time  will  show.  I  know  that  generation  of  men 
retort  upon  us  the  death  of  Servetus  at  Geneva ;  but  the  case  was  far 
different.  Schlichtingius  lived  in  his  own  country,  and  conversed  with 
men  of  his  own  persuasion,  who  in  a  succession  had  been  so  before  he  was 
born  :  Servetus  came  out  of  Spain  on  purpose  to  disturb  and  seduce  them 
who  knew  nothing  of  his  abominations.  Schlichtingius  disputed  his  heresy 
without  reproaching  or  blaspheming  God  willingly,  under  pretence  of 
denying  the  way  and  worship  of  his  adversaries  :  Servetus  stuffed  all  his 
discourses  with  horrid  blasphemies.  Beza  tells  us  that  he  called  the 
Trinity  tricipitem  Cerberum,  and  wrote  that  Moses  was  a  ridiculous  impos 
tor,  Beza,  Ep.  1 ;  and  there  are  passages  cited  out  of  his  book  of  the 
Trinity  (which  I  have  not  seen)  that  seem  to  have  as  much  of  the  devil 
in  them  as  any  thing  that  ever  yet  was  written  or  spoken  by  any  of  the 
sons  of  men.  If,  saith  he,  Christ  be  the  Son  of  God,  "  debuissent  ergo 
dicere,  quod  Deus  habebat  uxorem  quandam  spiritualem,  vel  quod  solus 
ipse  masculus  femineus  aut  hermaphroditus,  simul  erat  pater  et  mater, 
nam  ratio  vocabuli  non  patitur,  ut  quis  dicatur  sine  matre  pater :  et  si 
Logos  filius  erat,  natus  ex  patre  sine  matre;  die  mihi  quomodo  peperit  cum, 
per  ventrem  an  per  latus." 

To  this  height  of  atheism  and  blasphemy  had  Satan  wrought  up  the 
spirit  of  the  man ;  so  that  I  must  say  he  is  the  only  person  in  the  world, 
that  I  ever  read  or  heard  of,  that  ever  died  upon  the  account  of  religion, 
in  reference  to  whom  the  zeal  of  them  that  put  him  to  death  may  be 
acquitted.  But  of  these  things  God  will  judge.  Socinus  says  he  died 
calling  on  Christ ;  those  that  were  present  say  quite  the  contrary,  and 
that  in  horror  he  roared  out  misericordia  to  the  magistrates,  but  nothing 
else.  But  arcana  Deo. 

Of  these  men  last  named,  their  writings  and  endeavours  for  the  propa 
gation  of  their  opinions,  others  having  written  already,  I  shall  forbear. 
Some  of  note  amongst  them  have  publicly  recanted  and  renounced  their 
heresy,  as  Vogelius  and  Peuschelius;  whose  retractations  are  answered  by 
Smalcius.  Neither  shall  I  add  much  as  to  their  present  condition.  They 
have  as  yet  many  churches  in  Poland  and  Transylvania;  and  have  their 
superintendents,  after  the  manner  of  Germany.  Regenvolscius  tells  us  that 
all  the  others  are  sunk  and  lost,  only  the  Socinians  remain;1  the  Arians, 
Sabellians,  David  Georgians,  with  the  followers  of  Franciscus  David,  being 
all  gone  over  to  the  confession  of  Socinus :  which  makes  me  somewhat 
wonder  at  that  of  Johannes  Lsetus,  who  affirms  that  about  the  year  1619,  in 
a  convention  of  the  states  in  Poland,  those  who  denied  that  Christ  ought 
to  be  invocated  (which  were  the  followers  of  Franciscus  David,  Christianus 
Franken,  and  Palseologus)  pleaded  that  the  liberty  that  was  granted  to 
Antitrinitarians  was  intended  for  them,  and  not  for  the  Socinians ;  and 
the  truth  is,  they  had  footing  in  Poland  before  ever  the  name  of  Socinus 
was  there  known,  though  he  afterward  insults  upon  them,  and  says  that 
they  most  impudently  will  have  themselves  called  Christians  when  they 
are  not  so.* 

But  what  numbers  they  are  in  those  parts  of  the  world,  how  the  poison  is 

'  "  Denique  Socinistae  recensendi  mihi  veniunt  quia  Fausto  Socino,  per  Poloniam  et 
Transylvaniam  virus  suum  disseminante,  turn  nomen  turn  doctrinam  sumpsere ;  atque 
hi  soli,  extinctis  Farnesianis,  Anabaptistis,  et  Francisci  Davidis  sectatoribus  supersunt ; 
homines  ad  fallaciaset  sophismata  facti." — Hist.  Eccles.  Slavon.  lib.  i.  p.  90. 

1 "  Palseologus  praecipuus  fuit  ex  Antesignanis  illorum  qui  Christum  nee  invocandum, 
nee  adorandum  esse  hodie  affirmant  et  interim  tamen  se  Christianos  esse  impudenter 
profitentur,  quo  vix  quidquam  scelestius  in  religione  nostra  depravanda  excogitari  posse 
existimo."— Socin.  ad  Weik.  Ref.  ad  cap.  iv.  cap.  ii.  p.  42. 


drunk  in  by  thousands  in  the  Papacy,  by  what  advantages  it  hath  [insinu 
ated],  and  continues  to  insinuate  itself  into  multitudes  living  in  the  out 
ward  profession  of  the  reformed  churches,  what  progress  it  makes  and 
what  ground  it  gets  in  our  native  country  every  day,  I  had  Father  bewail 
than  relate.  This  I  am  compelled  to  say,  that  unless  the  Lord,  in  his 
infinite  mercy,  lay  an  awe  upon  the  hearts  of  men,  to  keep  them  in  some 
captivity  to  the  simplicity  and  mystery  of  the  gospel  who  now  strive  every 
day  to  exceed  one  another  in  novel  opinions  and  philosophical  apprehen 
sions  of  the  things  of  God,  I  cannot  but  fear  that  this  soul-destroying  abo 
mination  will  one  day  break  in  as  a  flood  upon  us. 

I  shall  only  add  something  of  the  occasions  and  advantages  that  these 
men  took  and  had  for  the  renewing  and  propagation  of  their  heresy,  and 
draw  to  a  close  of  this  discourse. 

Not  to  speak  of  the  general  and  more  remote  causes  of  these  and  all 
other  soul-destroying  errors,  or  the  darkness,  pride,  corruption,  and  wil- 
fulness  of  men  ;  the  craft,  subtilty,  envy,  and  malice  of  Satan;  the  just  re 
venging  hand  of  God,  giving  men  up  to  a  spirit  of  delusion,  that  they  might 
believe  lies,  because  they  delighted  not  in  the  truth, — I  shall  only  remark 
one  considerable  occasion  or  stumbling-block  at  which  they  fell  and  drank 
in  the  poison,  and  one  considerable  advantage  that  they  had  for  the  pro 
pagation  of  what  they  had  so  fallen  into. 

Their  great  stumbliiig -block  I  look  upon  to  be  the  horrible  corruption 
and  abuse  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  the  writings  of  the  schoolmen, 
and  the  practice  of  the  devotionists  among  the  Papists.  With  what  des 
perate  boldness,  atheistical  curiosity,  wretched  inquiries  and  babbling,  the 
schoolmen  have  polluted  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  gone  off  from  the 
simplicity  of  the  gospel  in  this  great  mystery,  is  so  notoriously  known  that 
I  shall  not  need  to  trouble  you  with  instances  for  the  confirmation  of  the 
observation.  This  the  men  spoken  of  (being  the  most,  if  not  all  of  them, 
brought  up  in  the  Papacy)  stumbled  at.  They  saw  the  doctrine  concerning 
that  God  whom  they  were  to  worship  rendered  unintelligible,  curious,  intri 
cate,  involved  in  terms  and  expressions  not  only  barbarous  in  themselves, 
and  not  used  in  Scripture,  but  insignificant,  horrid,  and  remote  from  the 
reason  of  men :  which,  after  some  struggling,  set  them  at  liberty  from  under 
the  bondage  of  those  notions;  and  when  they  should  have  gone  to  "the 
law  and  to  the  testimony"  for  their  information,  Satan  turned  them  aside  to 
their  own  reasonings  and  imaginations,  where  they  stumbled  and  fell.  And 
yet  of  the  forms  and  expressions  of  their  schoolmen  are  the  Papists  so  zeal 
ous,  as  that  whoever  departs  from  them  in  any  kind  is  presently  an  antitrini- 
tarian  heretic.  The  dealings  of  Bellarmine,  Genebrard,  Possevine,  and  others, 
with  Calvin,  are  known.  One  instance  may  be  taken  of  their  ingenuity  : 
Bellarmine,  in  his  book,  "  De  Christo,"  lays  it  to  the  charge  of  Bullinger, 
that  in  his  book,  "  De  Scripturse  et  EcclesiaB  Authoritate,"  he  wrote  that 
there  were  three  persons  in  the  Deity,  "  non  statu,  sed  gradu,  non  sub- 
sistentia,  sed  forma,  non  potestate,  sed  specie  differentes  ;"  on  which  he 
exclaims  that  the  Arians  themselves  never  spake  more  wickedly  :  and  yet 
these  are  the  very  words  of  Tertullian  against  Praxeas ;  which,  I  confess, 
are  warily  to  be  interpreted.  But  by  this  their  measuring  of  truth  by  the 
forms  received  by  tradition  from  their  fathers,  neglecting  and  forsaking 
the  simplicity  of  the  gospel,  that  many  stumbled  and  fell  is  most  evident. 

Schlusselburgius,  in  his  wonted  respect  and  favour  unto  the  Calvinists, 
tells  us  that  from  them  and  their  doctrine  was  the  occasion  administered 
unto  this  new  abomination  ;  also,  that  never  any  turned  Arian  but  he  was 
first  a  Calvinist:  which  he  seems  to  make  good  by  a  letter  of  Adam  NeuT 


serus,  who,  as  he  saith,  from  a  Sacramentarian  turned  Arian,  and  after 
ward  a  Mohammedan,  and  was  circumcised  at  Constantinople.  "  This  man," 
says  he,  "  in  a  letter  from  Constantinople  to  Doctor  Gerlachius,  tells  him 
that  none  turned  Arians  but  those  that  were  Calvinists  first ;  and  therefore 
he  that  would  take  heed  of  Arianism  had  best  beware  of  Calvinism."1  I 
am  very  unwilling  to  call  any  man's  credit  into  question  who  relates  a 
matter  of  fact,  unless  undeniable  evidence  enforce  me,  because  it  cannot 
be  done  without  an  imputation  of  the  foulest  crime  ;  I  shall  therefore  take 
leave  to  ask, — 

1.  What  credit  is  to  be  given  to  the  testimony  of  this  man,  who,  upon 
Conradus'  own  report,  was  circumcised,  turned  Mohammedan,  and  had 
wholly  renounced  the  truth  which  he  once  professed  ?     For  my  part,  I 
should  expect  from  such  a  person  nothing  but  what  was  maliciously  con 
trived  for  the  prejudice  of  the  truth ;  and  therefore  suppose  he  might  raise 
this  on  purpose  to  strengthen  and  harden  the  Lutherans  against  the  Cal 
vinists,  whom  he  hated  most,  because  that  they  professed  the  truth  which 
he  had  renounced,  and  that  true  knowledge  of  Christ  and  his  will  which 
now  he  hated ;  and  this  lie  of  his  he  looked  on  as  an  expedient  for  the 
hardening  of  the  Lutherans  in  their  error,  and  helping  them  with  a  stone 
to  cast  at  the  Calvinists. 

2.  Out  of  what  kindness  was  it  that  this  man  bare  to  Gerlachius  and  his 
companions,  that  he  gives  them  this  courteous  admonition  to  beware  of 
Calvinism  ?     Is  it  any  honour  to  Gerlachius,  Conradus  himself,  or  any 
other  Lutheran,  that  an  apostate,  an  abjurer  of  Christian  religion,  loved 
them  better  than  he  did  the  Calvinists  ?     What  person  this  Adam  Neu- 
serus  was,  and  what  the  end  of  him  was,  we  have  an  account  given  by 
Maresius  from  a  manuscript  history  of  Altingius.     From  Heidelberg,  be 
ing  suspected  of  a  conspiracy  with  one  Sylvanus,  who  for  it  was  put  to 
death,  he  fled  into  Poland,  thence  to  Constantinople,  where  he  turned 
Mohammedan,  and  was  circumcised,  and  after  a  while  fell  into  such  miser 
able  horror  and  despair,  that  with  dreadful  yellings  and  clamours  he  died  ; 
so  that  the  Turks  themselves  confess  that  they  never  heard  of  a  more 
horrid,  detestable,  and  tragical  end  of  any  man ;  whereupon  they  commonly 
called  him  Satan  Ogli,  or  the  son  of  the  devil.    And  so,  much  good  may  it 
do  Conradus,  with  his  witness. 

3.  But  what  occasion,  I  pray,  does  Calvinism  give  to  Arianism,  that  the 
one  should  be  taken  heed  of  if  we  intend  to  avoid  the  other  ?     What  of 
fence  does  it  give  to  men  inquiring  after  the  truth,  to  make  them  stumble 
on  their  abominations  ?     What  doctrine  doth  it  maintain  that  should  pre 
pare  them  for  it  ?     But  no  man  is  bound  to  burden  himself  with  more  than 
he  can  carry,  and   therefore  all  such  inquiries  Schlusselburgius  took  no 
notice  of. 

The  truth  is,  many  of  the  persons  usually  instanced  in  as  apostates 
from  Calvinism  to  Arianism  were  such  as,  leaving  Italy  and  other  parts 
of  the  pope's  dominion,  came  to  shelter  themselves  where  they  expected 
liberty  and  opportunity  of  venting  their  abomination  among  the  reformed 

1  "  Notatu  vcro  dignissimum  est  hisce  novis  Arianis  ad  apostasiam  seu  Arianismum  oc- 
casionem  fuisse,  doctrinam  Calvinistarum,  id  quod  ipsi  Ariani  baud  obscure  professi 
sunt.  Recitabo  hujus  rei  exemplum  memorabile  de  Adamo  Neusero  ante  paucos  annos  EC  - 
clesise  Heidelbcrgensis  ad  S.  S.  primario  pastore  nobilissimo  sacramentario.  Hie  ex  Zving- 
lianisimo  per  Arianismum  ad  Makometismum  usque,  cum  aliis  non  panels  Calvinistis 
Constantinopolin  circumcisionem  jud_aicam  recipiens  et  veritatem  agnitam  abnegans 
progressus  est.  Hie  Adamus  sequcntia  verba  dedit  Constantinopol.  D.  Gerlachio,  anno 
1574,  '  nullus  nostro  tempore  mihi  notus  factus  est  Arianus  qui  non  antea  fuerit  Cal- 
vinista.  Servetus,  etc.,  igitur  qui  sibi  timet  ne  incidat  in  Arianismum,  caveat  Cal- 
Tinismum.'  " 


churches,  and  joined  themselves  -with  them  in  outward  profession,  most  of 
them,  as  afterward  appeared,  being  thoroughly  infected  with  the  errors 
against  the  Trinity  and  about  the  Godhead  before  they  left  the  Papacy, 
where  they  stumbled  and  fell. 

In  the  practice  of  the  "  church,"  as  it  is  called,  wherein  they  were  bred, 
they  nextly  saw  the  horrible  idolatry  that  was  countenanced  in  abomin 
able  pictures  of  the  Trinity,  and  the  worship  yielded  to  them ;  which 
strengthened  and  fortified  their  minds  against  such  gross  conceptions  of 
the  nature  of  God  as  by  those  pictures  were  exhibited. 

Hence,  when  they  had  left  the  Papacy  and  set  up  their  opposition  to  the 
blessed  Trinity,  in  all  their  books  they  still  made  mention  of  those  idols 
and  pictures,  speaking  of  them  as  the  gods  of  those  that  worshipped  the 
Trinity.  This  instance  makes  up  a  good  part  of  their  book,  "  De  Falsa  et 
Vera  Cognitione  Unius  Dei,  Patris,  Filii,  et  Spiritus  Sancti,"  written  in  the 
name  of  the  ministers  of  the  churches  in  Sarmatia  and  Transylvania ;  a 
book  full  of  reproach  and  blasphemies.  But  this,  I  say;  was  another  oc 
casion  of  stumbling  to  those  miserable  wretches.  They  knew  what  thoughts 
the  men  of  their  communication  had  of  God,  by  the  pictures  made  of  him, 
and  the  worship  they  yielded  to  them, — they  knew  how  abhorrent  to  the 
very  principles  of  reason  it  was  that  God  should  be  such  as  by  them  re 
presented  ;  and  therefore  set  themselves  at  liberty  (or  rather  gave  up  them 
selves  to  the  service  of  Satan)  to  find  out  another  god  whom  they  might 

Neither  are  they  a  little  confirmed  to  this  day  in  their  errors  by  sundry 
principles  which,  under  the  Eoman  apostasy,  got  footing  in  the  minds  of 
men  professing  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ;  particularly,  they  sheltered 
themselves  from  the  sword  of  the  word  of  God,  evidencing  the  deity  of 
Christ  by  ascribing  to  him  divine  adoration,  by  the  shield  of  the  Papists' 
doctrine,  that  those  who  are  not  gods  by  nature  may  be  adored,  wor 
shipped,  and  invocated. 

Now,  that  to  this  day  the  Papists  continue  in  the  same  idolatry  (to 
touch  that  by  the  way),  I  shall  give  you,  for  your  refreshment,  a  copy  of 
a  verse  or  two,  whose  poetry  does  much  outgo  the  old, — 

"  0  crux  spes  unica ! 
Auge  piis  constantiam, 
Hoc  passionis  tern  pore, 
Reisque  dona  veniam ;" 

and  whose  blasphemy  comes  not  at  all  short  of  it.  The  first  is  of  Clarus 
Bonarus  the  Jesuit,  lib.  iii.  Amphitrial.  Honor,  lib.  iii.  cap.  ult.  ad  Divinam 
Hallensem  et  Puerum  Jesum,  as  followeth: — 

"  Haereo  lac  inter  meditans,  interque  cruorem ; 

Inter  delicias  uberis  et  lateris. 
Et  dico  (si  forte  oculus  super  ubera  tendo), 

Diva  parens  mammae  gaudia  posco  tuae. 
Sed  dico  (si  deinde  oculos  in  vufnera  verto), 

0  Jesu  lateris  gaudia  malo  tui. 
Rem  scio,  prensabo  si  fas  erit  ubera  dextra, 

Laeva  prensabo  vulnera  si  dabitur. 
Lac  matris  miscere  volo  cum  sanguine  nati ; 

Non  possem  antidoto  nobiliore  frui. 
Vulnera  restituant  turpem  ulceribus  mendicum, 

Testa  cui  saniem  radere  sola  potest. 
Ubera  reficient  Ismaelem  sitientem, 

Quern  Sara  non  patitur,  quern  neque  nutrit  Agar, 
Ista  mihi,  ad  pestem  procul  et  procul  expungendam ; 

Ista  mihi  aa  longas  evalitura  febres. 
Ira  vomit  flammas,  fumatque  libidinis  J^tna; 

Suffocare  queo  sanguine,  lacte  queo. 


Livor  inexpleta  rubigine  saevit  in  artus ; 

Detergere  queo  lacte,  cruore  queo : 
Vanus  honos  me  perpetua  prurigine  tentat; 

Exsaturare  queo  sanguine,  lacte  queo. 
Ergo  parens  et  nate,  meis  advertite  votis  , 

Lac  peto,  depereo  sanguinem,  utrumque  volo. 
0  sitio  tamen !  0  vocem  sitis  intercludit ! 

Nate  cruore,  sitim  comprime  lacte  parens. 
Die  matri,  mcus  hie  frater  sitit,  optima  mater, 

Vis  e  fonte  tuo  pro-mere,  deque  meo. 
Die  nato,  tuus  hie  frater  mi  mellee  lili 

Captivus  monstrat  vincula,  lytron  habes. 
Ergo  Redemptorem  monstra  te  jure  vocari, 

Nobilior  reliquis  si  tibi  sanguis  inest. 
Tuque  parens  nionstra,  matrem  te  jure  vocari, 

Ubera  si  reliquis  divitiora  geris. 
0  quando  lactabor  ab  ubere,  vulnere  pascar  ? 

Deliciisque  fruar,  mamma  latusque  tuis." 

The  other  is  of  Franciscus  de  Mendoza,  in  Viridario  Utriusque  Erudi- 
tionis,  lib.  ii.  prob.  2,  as  ensueth: — 

"  Ubera  me  matris,  nati  me  vulnera  pascunt 

Scilicet  haec  animi  sunt  medicina  mei, 
Nam  mihi  dum  lachrymas  amor  elicit  ubera  sugo 

Rideat  ut  dulci  mosstus  amore  dolor. 
At  me  pertentant  dum  gaudia,  vulnera  lambo 

Ut  me  Iseta  pio  mista  dolore  juvent. 
Vulnera  sic  nati,  sic  ubera  sugo  parentis 

Securse  ut  variae  sint  mihi  forte  vices. 
Quis  sine  lacte  precor,  vel  quis  sine  sanguine  vivat  ? 

Lacte  tuo  genetrix,  sanguine  nate  tuo. 
Sit  lac  pro  ambrosia,  suavi  pro  nectare  sanguis 

Sic  me  perpetuum  vulnus  et  uber  alit." 

And  this  their  idolatry  is  objected  to  them  by  Socinus,1  who  marvels 
at  the  impudence  of  Bellarmine  closing  his  books  of  controversies  (as  is 
the  manner  of  the  men  of  that  Society)  with  "  Laus  Deo,  virginique  matri 
Marioe,"  wherein,  as  he  says  (and  he  says  it  truly),  divine  honour  with 
God  is  ascribed  to  the  blessed  Virgin.. 

The  truth  is,  I  see  not  any  difference  between  that  dedication  of  him 
self  and  his  work,  by  Redemptus  Baranzano  the  priest,  in  these  words, 
"  Deo,  Virginique  Matri,  Sancto  Paulo,  Bruno,  Alberto,  Redempto,  Fran 
cisco,  Clarae,  Joannse,  Catharinse  Senensi,  divisque  omnibus,  quos  peculiar! 
cultu  honorare  desidero,  omnis  meus  labor  consecratus  sit"  (Baranzan. 
Nov.  Opin.  Physic.  Diglad.),  and  that  of  the  Athenians,  by  the  advice  of 
Epimenides,  Qto?g  'Affiag,  xai'Evguvrris  aai  A/£u»js,  ®su  ayvtaffry  xai  B'svu, 
both  of  them  being  suitable  to  the  counsel  of  Pythagoras : — 

'AffavKrov;  fit*  trpu<ra  3-iav;,  voftu  us  3iaxiirai, 

Tifta  xai  fiSou  o,x,cv,  'i<Tli6'  rifuns  ayauou;. 

Tou;  r(  X.O.TO.^OV'HIU;  riSt  Saifiavus,  'ivvofta.  pi^ui. 

Let  them  be  sure  to  worship  all  sorts,  that  they  may  not  miss.  And  by 
these  means,  amongst  others,  hath  an  occasion  of  stumbling  and  harden 
ing  been  given  to  these  poor  souls. 

As  to  the  propagation  of  their  conceptions,  they  had  the  advantage  not 
only  of  an  unsettled  time,  as  to  the  civil  government  of  the  nations  of  the 
world,  most  kingdoms  and  commonweals  in  Europe  undergoing  in  that 
age  considerable  mutations  and  changes  (a  season  wherein  commonly  the 
envious  man  hath  taken  opportunity  to  sow  his  tares) ;  but  also,  men  bc^ 

1  "  Hoc  tantum  dicam,  cum  nuper  Bellarmini  disputationum  primum  tomum  evol- 
verem,  supra  modum  me  miratum  fuisse,  quod  ad  finem  fere  smgularum  controyer- 
eiarum  homo  alioqui  acutus  ac  sagax  ea  verba  aut  curaverit  aut  permiserit  adscribi ; 
Laus  Deo,  virginique  matri ;  quibus  verbis  manifesto  Virgin!  Marise  divinus  cultus,  aut 
ex  acquo  cum  ipso  Deo,  aut  certe  secundum  Deum  exhibetur."— Socin.  ad  Weik.  cap.  i. 
p.  22. 


ing  set  at  liberty  from  the  bondage  under  which  they  were  kept  in  the 
Papacy,  and  from  making  the  tradition  of  their  fathers  the  rule  of  their 
worship  and  walking,  were  found  indeed  to  have,  upon  abiding  grounds, 
no  principles  of  religion  at  all,  and  therefore  were  earnest  in  the  inquiry 
after  something  that  they  might  fix  upon.  What  to  avoid  they  knew,  but 
what  to  close  withal  they  knew  not;  and  therefore  it  is  no  wonder  if, 
among  so  many  (I  may  say)  millions  of  persons  as  in  those  days  there 
were  that  fell  off  from  the  Papacy,  some  thousands  perhaps  (much  more 
scores)  might,  in  their  inquirings,  from  an  extreme  of  superstition  run  into 
another  almost  of  atheism. 

Such  was  the  estate  of  things  and  men  in  those  days  wherein  Socinianism, 
or  the  opposition  to  Christ  of  this  latter  edition,  set  forth  in  the  world. 
Among  the  many  that  were  convinced  of  the  abominations  of  Popery  before 
they  were  well  fixed  in  the  truth,  some  were  deceived  by  the  cunning 
sleight  of  some  few  men  that  lay  in  wait  to  deceive.  What  event  and  issue 
an  alike  state  and  condition  of  things  and  persons  hath  gone  forth  unto  in 
the  places  and  days  wherein  we  live  is  known  to  all;  and  that  the  saints  of 
God  may  be  warned  by  these  things  is  this  addressed  to  them.  To  what  hath 
been  spoken  I  had  thought,  for  a  close  of  this  discourse,  to  have  given  an  ac 
count  of  the  learning  that  these  men  profess,  and  the  course  of  their  studies, 
of  their  way  of  disputing,  and  the  advantages  they  have  therein ;  to  have  in 
stanced  in  some  of  their  considerable  sophisms,  and  subtile  depravations  of 
Scripture,  as  also  to  have  given  a  specimen  of  distinctions  and  answers, 
which  may  be  improved  to  the  discovering. and  slighting  of  their  fallacies  in 
the  most  important  heads  of  religion :  but  being  diverted  by  new  and  unex 
pected  avocations,  I  shall  refer  these  and  other  considerations  unto  a  pro- 
dromus  for  the  use  of  younger  students  who  intend  to  look  into  these  con 

And  these  are  the  persons  with  whom  we  have  to  deal,  these  their  ways 
and  progress  in  the  world.  I  shall  now  briefly  subjoin  some  advantages 
they  have  had,  something  of  the  way  and  method  wherein  they  have  pro 
ceeded,  for  the  diffusing  of  their  poison,  with  some  general  preservatives 
against  the  infection,  and  draw  to  a  close  of  this  discourse. 

1.  At  the  first  entrance  upon  their  undertaking,  some  of  them  made  no 
small  advantage,  in  dealing  with  weak  and  unwary  men,  by  crying  out  that 
the  terms  of  trinity,  person,  essence,  hypostatical  union,  communication  of  pro 
perties,  and  the  like,  were  not  found  in  the  Scripture,  and  therefore  were 
to  be  abandoned. 

With  the  colour  of  this  plea,  they  once  prevailed  so  far  on  the  churches 
in  Transylvania  as  that  they  resolved  and  determined  to  abstain  from  the 
use  of  those  words ;  but  they  quickly  perceived  that  though  the  words 
were  not  of  absolute  necessity  to  express  the  things  themselves  to  the 
minds  of  believers,  yet  they  were  so  to  defend  the  truth  from  the  opposi 
tion  and  craft  of  seducers,  and  at  length  recovered  themselves,  by  the 
advice  of  Beza  :*  yea,  and  Socinus  himself  doth  not  only  grant  but  prove 
that  in  general  this  is  not  to  be  imposed  on  men,  that  the  doctrine  they 
assert  is  contained  in  Scripture  in  so  many  words,  seeing  it  sufficeth  that 

l  "  Nam  ego  quidem  sic  statuo,  etsi  non  pendent  aliunde  rerum  sacrarum  veritas  quam 
ab  tmico  Dei  verbo,  et  sedulo  vitanda  est  nobis  omnis  xi^m'.it :  tamen  sublato  essen- 
tioe  et  hypostasesan  discrimine  (quibuscunque  tandem  verbis  utaris)  et  abrogate  e^oW*, 
vix  ac  ne  vix  quidem  istorum  blasphemorum  fraudes  dctegi,  et  errores  satis  perspiciie 
coargui  posse.  Ne?o  quoque  sublatis  vocabulis  naturse,  proprietatis,  hypostatica*  uni- 
onis,  limftMTu»  xoHai'ittt  posse  Nestorii  et  Eutychei  blasphemias  commode  a  quoquam  re- 
felli :  qua  iu  re  si  forte  hallucinor,  hoc  age,  nobis  demonstret  qui  potest.  et  nos  ilium 
coronabimus."— Beza,  Ep.  81. 


the  thing  itself  pleaded  for  be  contained  therein.1  To  which  purpose  I 
desire  the  learned  reader  to  peruse  his  words,  seeing  he  gives  an  instance 
of  what  he  speaks  somewhat  opposite  to  a  grand  notion  of  his  disciple, 
with  whom  I  have  chiefly  to  do  ;  yea,  and  the  same  person  rejects  the  plea 
of  his  companions,  of  the  not  express  usage  of  the  terms  wherein  the  doc 
trine  of  the  Trinity  is  delivered  in  the  Scripture,  as  weak  and  frivolous.2 
And  this  hath  made  me  a  little  marvel  at  the  precipitate,  undigested  con 
ceptions  of  some,  who,  in  the  midst  of  the  flames  of  Socinianism  kindling 
upon  us  on  every  side,  would  (contrary  to  the  wisdom  and  practice  of  all 
antiquity,  no  one  assembly  in  the  world  excepted)  tie  us  up  to  a  form  of 
confession  composed  of  the  bare  words  of  the  Scripture,  in  the  order 
wherein  they  are  placed.  If  we  profess  to  believe  that  Christ  is  God 
blessed  for  ever,  and  the  Socinians  tell  us,  "  True,  but  he  is  a  God  by 
office,  not  by  nature,"  is  it  not  lawful  for  us  to  say,  "  Nay,  but  he  is  God, 
of  the  same  nature,  substance,  and  essence  with  his  Father  ?"  If  we  shall 
say  that  Christ  is  God,  one  with  the  Father,  and  the  Sabellians  shall  tell 
us,  "  True,  they  are  every  way  one,  and  in  all  respects,  so  that  the  whole 
Deity  was  incarnate"  is  it  not  lawful  for  us  to  tell  them,  that  though  he 
be  one  in  nature  and  essence  with  his  Father,  yet  he  is  distinct  from  him 
in  person  ?  And  the  like  instances  may  be  given  for  all  the  expressions 
wherein  the  doctrine  of  the  blessed  Trinity  is  delivered.  The  truth  is,  we 
have  sufficient  ground  for  these  expressions  in  the  Scripture,  as  to  the 
words,  and  not  only  the  things  signified  by  them  :  the  nature  of  God  we 
have,  Gal.  iv.  8 ;  the  person  of  the  Father,  and  the  Son  distinct  from  it, 
Heb.  i.  3 ;  the  essence  of  God,  Exod.  iii.  14,  Rev.  i.  4 ;  the  Trinity, 
1  John  v.  7  ;  the  Deity,  Col.  ii.  9. 

2.  Their  whole  business,  in  all  their  books  and  disputations,  is  to  take 
upon  themselves  the  part  of  answerers,  so  cavilling  and  making  exceptions, 
not  caring  at  all  what  becomes  of  any  thing  in  religion,  so  they  may  with 
any  colour  avoid  the  arguments  wherewith  they  are  pressed.  Hence  al 
most  all  their  books,  unless  it  be  some  few  short  catechisms  and  confes 
sions,  are  only  answers  and  exceptions  to  other  men's  writings.  Beside  the 
fragments  of  a  catechism  or  two,  Socinus  himself  wrote  very  little  but  of  this 
kind  ;  so  do  the  rest.  How  heavy  and  dull  they  are  in  asserting  may  be 
seen  in  Yolkelius' Institutions;  and  here,  whilst  they  escape  their  adversaries, 
they  are  desperately  bold  in  their  interpretations  of  Scripture,  though,  for 
the  most  part,  it  suffices  [them  to  say]  that  what  is  urged  against  them  is 
not  the  sense  of  the  place,  though  they  themselves  can  assign  no  sense  at 
all  to  it.  I  could  easily  give  instances  in  abundance  to  make  good  this 
observation  concerning  them,  but  I  shall  not  mention  what  must  neces 
sarily  be  insisted  on  in  the  ensuing  discourse.  Their  answers  are,  "  This 

1  "  Ais  igitur  adrersus  id  quod  a  me  affirmatum  fuerat,  in  controversis  dogmatibus 
probandis,  aut  improbandis,  necesse  esse  literam  adferre,  et  id  quod  asseritur  manifesto 
demonstrate :  id  quod  asseritur  manifesto  demonstrari  debere  plane  concede ;  literam 
.  autem  adferre  necesse  esse  prorsus  nego ;  me  autem  jure  hoc  facere  id  aperte  confirmat, 
quod  qusedam  dogmata  in  Christi  ecclesia  receptissima,  non  solum  per  expressam  literam 
non  probantur,  sed  ipsam  sibi  contrariam  habent.  Exempli  causa,  inter  cranes  fere 
Christian!  nominis  homines  receptissimum  est,  Deum  non  habere  aliqua  membra  corporis, 
ut  aures,  oculos,  nares,  brachia,  pedes,  manus,  et  tamen  non  modo  expresse  et  literaliter 
(ut  vocant)  id  scriptum  in  sacris  libris  non  est :  verum  etiam  contrariuta  omnino  passim 
diserte  scriptum  extat." — Faust.  Socin.  Frag.  Disput.  de  Ador.  Christi  cum  Fran.  David, 
cap.  x.  p.  59. 

1  "  Simile  quod  aflers  de  yocabulis  "  essentice,"  et  "personarum"  a  nobis  repudiatis,  quia 
in  sanctis  literis  non  inveniantur,  non  est  admittenaum,  nemini  enim  vere  cordato  per- 
euadebitis  id  quod  per  ea  vocabuli  adversarii  significare  voluerunt,  idcirco  repudiandum. 
esse,  quia  ipsa  vocabula  scripta  non  inveniantur,  imo  quicunque  ex  nobis  Lac  ratione 
sunt  usi,  suspectam  apud  nonnullos,  alioquin  ingenio,  et  eruditione  prosstantes  viros, 
causam  uostram  reddiuere."— Idem.-ubi  sup.  p.  62. 


may  otherwise  be  expounded ;"  "  It  may  otherwise  be  understood ;"  "  Tho 
word  may  have  another  signification  in  another  place." 

3.  The  greatest  triumphs  which  they  set  up  in  their  own  conceits  ave, 
when  by  any  ways  they  possess  themselves  of  any  usual  maxim  that 
passes  current  amongst  men,  being  applied  to  finite,  limited,  created  things, 
or  any  acknowledged  notion  in  philosophy,  and  apply  it  to  the  infinite, 
uncreated,  essence  of  God;  than  which  course  of  proceeding  nothing,  indeed, 
can  be  more  absurd,  foolish,  and  contrary  to  sound  reason.      That  God 
and  man,  the  Creator  and  creature,  that  which  is  absolutely  infinite  and 
independent,  and  that  which  is  finite,  limited,  and  dependent,  should  be 
measured  by  the  same  rules,  notions,  and  conceptions,  unless  it  be  by  way 
of  eminent  analogy,  which  will  not  further  their  design  at  all,  is  most  fond 
and  senseless.     And  this  one  observation  is  sufficient  to  arm  us  against  all 
their  profound  disputes  about  "  essence,"  "  personality,"  and  the  like. 

4.  Generally,  as  we  said,  in  the  pursuit  of  their  design  and  carrying  it 
on,  they  begin  in  exclaiming  against  the  usual  words  wherein  the  doctrines 
they  oppose  are  taught  and  delivered.  "  They  are  not  Scripture  expressions," 
etc. ;  "  For  the  things  themselves,  they  do  not  oppose  them,  but  they  think 
them  not  so  necessary  as  some  suppose,"  etc.    Having  got  some  ground  by 
this  on  the  minds  of  men,  great  stress  is  immediately  laid  on  this,  "  That  a 
man  may  be  saved  though  he  believe  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  the 
satisfaction  of  Christ,  etc.,  so  that  he  live  holily,  and  yield  obedience  to  the 
precepts  of  Christ ;  so  that  it  is  mere  madness  and  folly  to  break  love  and 
communion  about  such  differences."  By  this  engine  I  knew,  not  long  since, 
a  choice  society  of  Christians,  through  the  cunning  sleight  of  one  lying 
in  wait  to  deceive,  disturbed,  divided,  broken,  and  in  no  small  part  of  it 
infected.      If  they  once  get  this  advantage,  and  have  thereby  weakened 
the  love  and  valuation  of  the  truth  with  any,  they  generally,  through  the 
righteous  judgment  of  God  in  giving  up  men  of  light  and  vain  spiiits  to 
the  imaginations  of  their  own  hearts,  overthrow  their  faith,  and  lead  them 
captive  at  their  pleasure. 

5.  I  thought  to  have  insisted,  in  particular,  on  their  particular  ways  of 
insinuating  their  abominations,  of  the  baits  they  lay,  the  devices  they  have, 
their  high  pretences  to  reason,  and  holiness  in  their  lives,  or  honesty;  as  also,  to 
have  evinced,  by  undeniable  evidences,  that  there  are  thousands  in  the 
Papacy  and  among  the  Reformed  Churches  that  are  wholly  baptized  into 
their  vile  opinions  and  infidelity,  though,  for  the  love  of  their  temporal  en 
joyments,  which  are  better  to  them  than  their  religion,  they  profess  it  not ; 
as  also,  how  this  persuasion  of  theirs  hath  been  the  great  door  whereby  the 
flood  of  atheism  which  is  broken  in  upon  the  world,  and  which  is  almost 
always  professed  by  them  who  would  be  accounted  the  wits  of  the  times,  is 
come  in  upon  the  nations;  farther,  to  have  given  general  answers  and  dis 
tinctions  applicable  to  the  most  if  not  all  of  the  considerable  arguments 
and  objections  wherewith  they  impugn  the  truth  :  but  referring  all  these 
to  my  general  considerations  for  the  study  of  controversies  in  divinity, 
with  some  observations  that  may  be  preservatives  against  their  poison, 
I  shall  speedily  acquit  you  from  the  trouble  of  this  address.     Give  me 
leave,  then,  in  the  last  place  (though  unfit  and  unworthy),  to  give  some 
general  cautions  to  my  fellow -labourers  and  students  in  divinity  for  the 
freeing  our  souls  from  being  tainted  with  these  abominations,  and  I  have 
done : — 

1.  Hold  fast  the  form  of  wholesome  words  and  sound  doctrine :  knovr 
that  there  are  other  ways  of  peace  and  accommodation  with  dissenters 
than  by  letting  go  the  least  particle  of  truth.  When  men  would  accommo- 

THE  PREFACE  TO  THE  READER.    ,  '         49 

date  their  own  hearts  to  love  and  peace,  they  must  not  double  with  their 
souls,  and  accommodate  the  truth  of  the  gospel  to  other  men's  imagina 
tions.  Perhaps  some  will  suggest  great  things  of  going  a  middle  way  in 
divinity,  between  dissenters ;  but  what  is  the  issue,  for  the  most  part,  of 
such  proposals  ?  After  they  have,  by  their  middle  way,  raised  no  less 
contentions  than  was  before  between  the  extremes  (yea,  when  things 
before  were  in  some  good  measure  allayed),  the  accommodators  them 
selves,  through  an  ambitious  desire  to  make  good  and  defend  their  own 
expedients,  are  insensibly  carried  over  to  the  party  and  extreme  to  whom 
they  thought  to  make  a  condescension  unto ;  and,  by  endeavouring  to 
blanch  their  opinions,  to  make  them  seem  probable,  they  are  engaged  to 
the  defence  of  their  consequences  before  they  are  aware.  Amyraldus 
(whom  I  look  upon  as  one  of  the  greatest  wits  of  these  days)  will  at 
present  go  a  middle  way  between  the  churches  of  France  and  the  Armi- 
nians.  What  hath  been  the  issue  ?  Among  the  churches,  divisions,  tumult, 
disorder ;  among  the  professors  and  ministers,  revilings,  evil  surmisings ; 
to  the  whole  body  of  the  people,  scandals  and  offences ;  and  in  respect  of 
himself,  evidence  of  daily  approaching  nearer  to  the  Arminian  party,  until, 
as  one  of  them  saith  of  him,  he  is  not  far  from  their  kingdom  of  heaven. 
But  is  this  all  ?  Nay,  but  Grotius,  Episcopius,  Curcellseus,1  etc.  (quanta 
nomina ! )  with  others,  must  go  a  middle  way  to  accommodate  with  the 
Socinians;  and  all  that  will  not  follow  are  rigid  men,  that  by  any  means 
•will  defend  the  opinions  they  are  fallen  upon.  The  same  plea  is  made  by 
others  for  accommodation  with  the  Papists ;  and  still  "  moderation,"  "  the 
middle  way,"  "  condescension,"  are  cried  up.  I  can  freely  say,  that  I  know 
not  that  man  in  England  who  is  willing  to  go  farther  in  forbearance,  love, 
and  communion  with  all  that  fear  Grod  and  hold  the  foundation,  than  I  am ; 
but  that  this  is  to  be  done  upon  other  grounds,  principles,  and  ways,  by 
other  means  and  expedients,  than  by  a  condescension  from  the  exactness 
of  the  least  apex  of  gospel  truth,  or  by  an  accommodation  of  doctrines  by 
loose  and  general  terms,  I  have  elsewhere  sufficiently  declared.  Let  no 
man  deceive  you  with  vain  pretences ;  hold  fast  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus, 
part  not  with  one  iota,  and  contend  for  it  when  called  thereunto. 

2.  Take  heed  of  the  snare  of  Satan  in  affecting  eminency  by  singularity. 
It  is  good  to  strive  to  excel  and  to  go  before  one  another  in  knowledge  and 
in  light,  as  in  holiness  and  obedience.  To  do  this  in  the  road  is  difficult. 
Ahimaaz  had  not  outrun  Cushi  but  that  he  took  a  by-path.  Many  rinding 
it  impossible  to  emerge  unto  any  consideration  by  walking  in  the  beaten  path 
of  truth  (all  parts  of  divinity,  all  ways  of  handling  it,  being  carried  already 
to  such  a  height  and  excellency,  that  to  make  any  considerable  improve 
ment  requires  great  pains,  study,  and  an  insight  into  all  kinds  of  learning), 
and  yet  not  able  to  conquer  the  itch  of  being  accounted  7ivt$  fteydXoi, 
turn  aside  into  by-ways,  and  turn  the  eyes  of  all  men  to  them  by  scramb 
ling  over  hedge  and  ditch,  when  the  sober  traveller  is  not  at  all  regarded. 

The  Roman  historian,  giving  an  account  of  the  degeneracy  of  eloquence 
after  it  once  came  to  its  height  in  the  time  of  Cicero,  fixeth  on  this  as  the 
most  probable  reason:  "  Difficilis  in  perfecto  mora  est;  naturaliterque,  quod 
procedere  non  potest,  recedit ;  et  ut  primo  ad  consequendos,  quos  priores 
ducimus,  accendimur :  ita,  ubi  aut  prseteriri,  aut  sequari  eos  posse  desperavi- 
mus,  studium  cum  spe  senescit;  et  quod  adsequi  non  potest,  sequi  desinit;  et, 
velut  occupatam  relinquens  materiam,  quserit  novam :  prseteritoque  eo  in 

1 "  Quotquot  hactenus  theologica  tractarunt,  id  sibi  negotii  crediderunt  solum  dari, 
nt  quam  sive  sors  illis  obtulerat,  sive  judicio  amplexi  erant  sententiam,  totis  illam  viri- 
bus  tuerentur." — Curcellseus  Praefat.  ad  Opera  Episcop. 

VOL.  XIL  4 


quo  eminere  non  possumus,  aliquid  in  quo  nitamur  conquirimus ;  sequi- 
turquc,  ut  frcquens  ac  mobilis  transitus  maximum  perfect!  operis  impedi- 
mentum  sit." — Paterc.  Hist.  Rom.  lib.  i.  cap.  xvii. 

I  wish  some  such  things  may  not  be  said  of  the  doctrine  of  the  reformed 
churches.  It  was  not  long  since  raised  to  a  great  height  of  purity  in 
itself,  and  perspicuity  in  the  way  of  its  delivery ;  but  athletic  constitutions 
are  seldom  permanent.1  Men  would  not  be  content  to  walk  after  others, 
and  finding  they  could  not  excel  what  was  done,  they  have  given  over 
to  imitate  it  or  to  do  anything  in  the  like  kind;  and  therefore,  neglecting 
that  wherein  they  could  not  be  eminent,  they  have  taken  a  course  to 
have  something  peculiar  wherein  to  put  forth  their  endeavours.  Let  us, 
then,  watch  against  this  temptation,  and  know  that  a  man  may  be  higher 
than  his  brethren,  and  yet  be  but  a  Saul. 

3.  Let  not  any  one  attempt  dealing  with  these  men  that  is  not  in  some 
good  measure  furnished  with  those  kinds  of  literature  and  those  common  arts 
wherein  they  excel;  as,  first,  the  knowledge  of  the  tongues  ivherein  the  Scripture 
is  written,  namely,  the  Hebrew  and  Greek.  He  that  is  not  in  some  mea 
sure  acquainted  with  these  will  scarcely  make  thorough  work  in  dealing 
with  them.  There  is  not  a  word,  nor  scarce  a  letter  in  a  word  (if  I  may  so 
speak),  which  they  do  not  search  and  toss  up  and  down ;  not  an  expression 
which  they  pursue  not  through  the  whole  Scripture,  to  see  if  any  place 
will  give  countenance  to  the  interpretation  of  it  which  they  embrace.  The 
curious  use  of  the  Greek  articles,  which,  as  Scaliger  calls  them,  are  "loqua- 
cissimse  gentis  flabellum,"  is  their  great  covert  against  the  arguments  for 
the  deity  of  Christ.  Their  disputes  about  the  Hebrew  words  wherein 
the  doctrine  of  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  is  delivered  in  the  Old  Testament, 
the  ensuing  treatise  will  in  part  manifest.  Unless  a  man  can  debate  the 
use  of  words  with  them  in  the  Scripture,  and  by  instances  from  other 
approved  authors,  it  will  be  hard  so  to  enclose  or  shut  them  up  but  that 
they  will  make  way  to  evade  and  escape.  Press  them  with  any  testimony 
of  Scripture,  if  of  any  one  word  of  the  testimony,  whereon  the  sense  of 
the  whole  in  any  measure  depends,  they  can  except  that  in  another  place 
that  word  in  the  original  hath  another  signification,  and  therefore  it  is 
not  necessary  that  it  should  here  signify  as  you  urge  it,  unless  you  are 
able  to  debate  the  true  meaning  and  import  of  the  word  with  them,  they 
suppose  they  have  done  enough  to  evade  your  testimony.  And  no  less 
[necessary],  nextly,  are  the  common  arts  of  logic  and  rhetoric,  wherein  they 
exercise  themselves.  Among  all  Socinus'  works,  there  is  none  more  per 
nicious  than  the  little  treatise  he  wrote  about  sophisms ;  wherein  he  labours 
to  give  instances  of  all  manner  of  sophistical  arguments  in  those  which  are 
produced  for  the  confirmation  of  the  doctrine  of  the  blessed  Trinity. 

He  that  would  re-enforce  those  arguments,  and  vindicate  them  from  his 
exceptions  and  the  entanglements  cast  upon  them,  without  some  consider 
able  acquaintance  with  the  principles  of  logic  and  artificial  rules  of  argu 
mentation,  will  find  himself  at  a  loss.  Besides,  of  all  men  in  the  world,  in 
their  argumentations  they  are  most  sophistical.  It  is  seldom  that  they 
urge  any  reason  or  give  any  exception  wherein  they  conclude  not  "a  par- 
ticulari  ad  universale,"  or  "ab  indefinite  ad  universale,  exclusive,"  or  "ab 
aliquo  statu  Christi  ad  omnem,"  or  "ab  oeconomia  Trinitatis  ad  theologiam 
Deitatis,"  or  "ab  usu  vocis  alicubi"  to  "ubique:"  as,  "  Christ  is  a  man, 
therefore  not  God;  he  is  the  servant  of  the  Father,  therefore  not  of  the 

T  *E»  reuri  'yvftvaaTixoiffii/  a!  \<r   uxpot   tut^ia.;,   ffQaXtpal,  r,v   tv   <ru   \ff^a.rta  'iunv   ol  ya.p 
'viiv  tv  ru  KUTta   ovdi   uTftpiiiv   ivti   3s   ovx.   a.<rpifj.iwfiv   oi$i   n   Suvavrai   ttfi    <ra 
i,  \iitwai  itri  r»  %t7par. — Hippocrat.  Apkoris.  lib.  i.  sect.  1 1. 


same  nature."  And  the  like  instances  may  be  given  in  abundance ;  from 
which  kind  of  arguing  he  will  hardly  extricate  himself  who  is  ignorant 
of  the  rudiments  of  logic.  The  frequency  of  figurative  expressions  in  the 
Scripture,  which  they  make  use  of  to  their  advantage,  requires  the  know 
ledge  of  rhetoric  also  in  him  that  will  deal  with  them  to  any  good  purpose. 
A  good  assistance  (in  the  former  of  these  especially)  is  given  to  students 
by  Keslerus,  "in  examine  Logicaa,  Metaphysics,  et  Physicae  Photinianse." 
The  pretended  maxims,  also,  which  they  insist  on  from  the  civil  law,  in  the 
business  of  the  satisfaction  of  Christ,  which  are  especially  urged  by  Socinus, 
and  by  Crellius  in  his  defence  against  Grotius,  will  make  him  who  shall  en 
gage  with  them  see  it  necessary  in  some  measure  to  be  acquainted  with  the 
principles  of  that  faculty  and  learning  also. 

With  those  who  are  destitute  of  these,  the  great  Spirit  of  truth  is  an 
abundantly  sufficient  preserver  from  all  the  cunning  sleights  of  men  that 
lie  in  wait  to  deceive.  He  can  give  them  to  believe  and  suffer  for  the 
truth.  But  that  they  should  at  any  time  look  upon  themselves  as  called  to 
read  the  books  or  dispute  with  the  men  of  these  abominations,  I  can  see 
no  ground. 

4.  Always  bear  in  mind  the  gross  figments  that  they  seek  to  assert  and 
establish  in  the  room  of  that  which  they  cunningly  and  subtiiely  oppose. 
Remember  that  the  aim  of  their  arguments  against  the  deity  of  Christ  and 
the  blessed  Trinity  is,  to  set  up  two  true  Gods,  the  one  so  by  nature,  the 
other  made  so, — the  one  God  in  his  own  essence,  the  other  a  God  from  him 
by  office,  that  was  a  man,  is  a  spirit,  and  shall  cease  to  be  a  God.     And 
some  farther  account  hereof  you  will  meet  with  in  the  close  of  the  ensuing 

5.  Diligent,  constant,  serious  reading,  studying,  meditating  on  the  Scrip 
tures,  with  the  assistance  and  direction  of  all  the  rules  and  advantages  for 
the  right  understanding  of  them  which,  by  the  observation  and  diligence 
of  many  worthies,  we  are  furnished  withal,  accompanied  with  continual 
attendance  on  the  throne  of  grace  for  the  presence  of  the  Spirit  of  truth 
with  us,  to  lead  us  into  all  truth,  and  to  increase  his  anointing  of  us  day 
by  day,  "  shining  into  our  hearts  to  give  us  the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of 
God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ,"  is,  as  for  all  other  things  in  the  course  of 
our  pilgrimage  and  walking  with  God,  so  for  our  preservation  against 
these  abominations,  and  the  enabling  of  us  to  discover  their  madness  and 
answer  their  objections,  of  indispensable  necessity.      Apollos,  who  was 
"mighty  in  the  Scriptures,"  Acts  xviii.  24,  "mightily  convinced  the"  gain 
saying  "  Jews,"  verse  28.    Neither,  in  dealing  with  these  men,  is  there  any 
better  course  in  the  world  than,  in  a  good  order  and  method,  to  multiply 
testimonies  against  them  to  the  same  purpose;  for  whereas  they  have  shifts 
in  readiness  to  every  particular,  and  hope  to  darken  a  single  star,  when 
they  are  gathered  into  a  constellation  they  send  out  a  glory  and  bright 
ness  which  they  cannot  stand  before.     Being  engaged  myself  once  in  a 
public  dispute  about  the  satisfaction  of  Christ,  I  took  this  course,  in  a 
clear  and  evident  coherence,  producing  very  many  testimonies  to  the  con 
firmation  of  it;  which  together  gave  such  an  evidence  to  the  truth,  that 
one  who  stood  by  instantly  affirmed  that  "there  was  enough  spoken  to  stop 
the  mouth  of  the  devil  himself."     And  this  course  in  the  business  of  the 
deity  and  satisfaction  of  Christ  will  certainly  be  triumphant.     Let  us, 
then,  labour  to  have  our  senses  abundantly  exercised  in  the  word,  that  we 
inay  be  able  to  discern  between  good  and  evil ;  and  that  not  by  studying 
the  places  themselves  [only]  that  are  controverted,  but  by  a  diligent  search 
into  the  whole  mind  and  will  of  God  as  revealed  in.  the  word ;  wherein  the 


sense  is  given  in  to  humble  souls  with  more  life,  power,  and  evidence  of  truth, 
and  is  more  effectual  for  the  begetting  of  faith  and  love  to  the  truth,  than 
in  a  curious  search  after  the  annotations  of  men  upon  particular  places. 
And  truly  I  must  needs  say  that  I  know  not  a  more  deplorable  mistake 
in  the  studies  of  divines,  both  preachers  and  others,  than  their  diversion 
from  an  immediate,  direct  study  of  the  Scriptures  themselves  unto  the 
studying  of  commentators,  critics,  scholiasts,  annotators,  and  the  like  helps, 
which  God  in  his  good  providence,  making  use  of  the  abilities,  and  some 
times  the  ambition  and  ends  of  men,  hath  furnished  us  withal.  Not  that 
I  condemn  the  use  and  study  of  them,  which  I  wish  men  were  more  dili 
gent  in,  but  desire  pardon  if  I  mistake,  and  do  only  surmise,  by  the  ex 
perience  of  my  own  folly  for  many  years,  that  many  which  seriously  study 
the  things  of  God  do  yet  rather  make  it  their  business  to  inquire  after  the 
sense  of  other  men  on  the  Scriptures  than  to  search  studiously  into  them 

0.  That  direction,  in  this  kind,  which  with  me  is  instar  omnium,  is  for  a 
diligent  endeavour  to  have  the  power  of  the  truths  professed  and  contended  for 
abiding  upon  our  hearts,  that  we  may  not  contend  for  notions,  but  what 
we  have  a  practical  acquaintance  with  in  our  own  souls.  When  the  heart 
is  cast  indeed  into  the  mould  of  the  doctrine  that  the  mind  embraceth ; 
when  the  evidence  and  necessity  of  the  truth  abides  in  us;  when  not  the 
sense  of  the  words  only  is  in  our  heads,  but  the  sense  of  the  things  abides 
in  our  hearts ;  when  we  have  communion  with  God  in  the  doctrine  we  con 
tend  for, — then  shall  we  be  garrisoned,  by  the  grace  of  God,  against  all  the 
assaults  of  men.  And  without  this  all  our  contending  is,  as  to  ourselves, 
of  no  value.  What  am  I  the  better  if  I  can  dispute  that  Christ  is  God, 
but  have  no  sense  or  sweetness  in  my  heart  from  hence  that  he  is  a  God 
in  covenant  with  my  soul?  What  will  it  avail  me  to  evince,  by  testimonies 
and  arguments,  that  he  hath  made  satisfaction  for  sin,  if,  through  my  un 
belief,  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  me,  and  I  have  no  experience  of  my 
own  being  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him, — if  I  find  not,  in  my 
standing  before  God,  the  excellency  of  having  my  sins  imputed  to  him 
and  his  righteousness  imputed  to  me  ?  Will  it  be  any  advantage  to  me,  in 
the  issue,  to  profess  and  dispute  that  God  works  the  conversion  of  a  sin 
ner  by  the  irresistible  grace  of  his  Spirit,  if  I  was  never  acquainted  experi 
mentally  with  the  deadness  and  utter  impotency  to  good,  that  opposition  to 
the  law  of  God,  which  is  in  my  own  soul  by  nature,  with  the  efficacy  of 
the  exceeding  greatness  of  the  power  of  God  in  quickening,  enlightening, 
and  bringing  forth  the  fruits  of  obedience  in  me?  It  is  the  power  of  truth 
in  the  heart  alone  that  will  make  us  cleave  unto  it  indeed  in  an  hour  of 
temptation.  Let  us,  then,  not  think  that  we  are  any  thing  the  better  for 
our  conviction  of  the  truths  of  the  great  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  for  which 
we  contend  with  these  men,  unless  we  find  the  power  of  the  truths  abid 
ing  in  our  own  hearts,  and  have  a  continual  experience  of  their  necessity 
and  excellency  in  our  standing  before  God  and  our  communion  with  him. 

7.  Do  not  look  upon  these  things  as  things  afar  off,  wherein  you  are 
little  concerned.  The  evil  is  at  the  door;  there  is  not  a  city,  a  town, 
scarce  a  village,  in  England,  wherein  some  of  this  poison  is  not  poured 
forth.  Are  not  the  doctrines  of  free  will,  universal  redemption,  apostasy 
from  grace,  mutability  of  God,  of  denying  the  resurrection  of  the  dead, 
with  all  the  foolish  conceits  of  many  about  God  and  Christ,  in  this  nation, 
ready  to  gather  to  this  head? 

Let  us  not  deceive  ourselves ;  Satan  is  a  crafty  enemy.  He  yet  hovers 
up  and  down  in  the  lubricous,  vain  imaginations  of  a  confused  multitude, 


whose  tongues  are  so  divided  that  they  understand  not  one  the  other.  I 
dare  boldly  say,  that  if  ever  he  settle  to  a  stated  opposition  to  the  gospel, 
it  will  be  in  Socinianism.  The  Lord  rebuke  him;  he  is  busy  in  and  by 
many,  where  little  notice  is  taken  of  him.  But  of  these  things  thus  far. 

A  particular  account  of  the  cause  and  reasons  of  my  engagement  in  this 
business,  with  what  I  have  aimed  at  in  the  ensuing  discourse,  you  will  find 
given  in  my  epistle  to  the  university,  so  that  the  same  things  need  not  here 
also  be  delivered.  The  confutation  of  Mr  Biddle's  Catechism,  and  Smalcius' 
Catechism,  commonly  called  the  "  Kacovian ; "  with  the  vindication  of  all 
the  texts  of  Scripture  giving  testimony  to  the  deity  of  Christ  throughout 
the  Old  and  New  Testament  from  the  perverse  glosses  and  interpretations 
put  upon  them  by  Hugo  Grotius  in  his  Annotations  on  the  Bible,  with 
those  also  which  concern  his  satisfaction ;  and,  on  the  occasion  hereof,  the 
confirmation  of  the  most  important  truths  of  the  Scripture,  about  the  nature 
of  God,  the  person  of  Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  offices  of  Christ, 
etc., — have  been  in  my  design.  With  what  mind  and  intention,  with  what 
love  to  the  truth,  with  what  dependence  on  God  for  his  presence  and  as 
sistance,  with  what  earnestness  of  supplication  to  enjoy  the  fruit  of  the 
promise  of  our  dear  Lord  Jesus,  to  lead  me  into  all  truth  by  his  blessed 
Spirit,  I  have  gone  through  this  work,  the  Lord  knows.  I  only  know  that 
in  every  particular  I  have  come  short  of  my  duty  therein,  and  that  a  review 
of  my  paths  and  pains  would  yield  me  very  little  refreshment,  but  that  "  I 
know  in  whom  I  have  believed,  and  am  persuaded  that  even  concerning 
this  also  he  will  remember  me  for  good,  and  spare  me,  according  to  the 
greatness  of  his  mercy."  And  whatever  becomes  of  this  weak  endeavour 
before  the  Lord,  yet  "  he  hath  made  with  me  an  everlasting  covenant, 
ordered  in  all  things  and  sure,  and  this  is  all  my  salvation  and  all  my 
desire,  although  he  make  it  not  to  grow."  What  is  performed  is  submitted 
humbly  to  the  judgment  of  them  to  whom  this  address  is  made.  About 
the  thoughts  of  others,  or  any  such  as  by  envy,  interest,  curiosity,  or  fac 
tion,  may  be  swayed  or  biassed,  I  am  not  solicitous.  If  any  benefit  re 
dound  to  the  saints  of  the  Most  High,  or  any  that  belong  to 'the  purpose 
of  God's  love  be  advantaged,  enlightened,  or  built  up  in  their  most  holy 
faith  in  the  least,  by  what  is  here  delivered,  I  have  my  reward. 


I  HAVE  often  wondered  and  complained  that  there  was  no  catechism  yet 
extant  (that  I  could  ever  see  or  hear  of)  from  whence  one  might  learn 
the  true  grounds  of  the  Christian  religion,  as  the  same  is  delivered  in  the 
holy  Scripture,  all  catechisms  generally  being  so  stuffed  with  the  sup- 
posals  and  traditions  of  men  that  the  least  part  of  them  is  derived  from 
the  word  of  God :  for  when  councils,  convocations,  and  assemblies  of 
divines,  justling  the  sacred  writers  out  of  their  place  in  the  church,  had 
once  framed  articles  and  confessions  of  faith  according  to  their  own  fancies 
and  interests,  and  the  civil  magistrate  had  by  his  authority  ratified  the 
same,  all  catechisms  were  afterward  fitted  to  those  articles  and  confessions, 
and  the  Scripture  either  wholly  omitted  or  brought  in  only  for  a  show, 
not  one  quotation  amongst  many  being  a  whit  to  the  purpose,  as  will  soon 
appear  to  any  man  of  judgment,  who,  taking  into  his  hand  the  said  cate 
chisms,  shall  examine  the  texts  alleged  in  them ;  for  if  he  do  this  diligently 
and  impartially,  he  will  find  the  Scripture  and  those  catechisms  to  be  at 
so  wide  a  distance  one  from  another,  that  he  will  begin  to  question  whether 
the  catechists  gave  any  heed  at  all  to  what  they  wrote,  and  did  not  only 
themselves  refuse  to  make  use  of  their  reason,  but  presume  that  their 
readers  also  would  do  the  same.  In  how  miserable  a  condition,  then,  as 
to  spiritual  things,  must  Christians  generally  needs  be,  when  thus  trained 
up,  not,  as  the  apostle  adviseth,  "  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the 
Lord,"  but  in  the  supposals  and  traditions  of  men,  having  little  or  no 
assurance  touching  the  reality  of  their  religion !  which  some  observing, 
and  not  having  the  happiness  to  light  upon  the  truth,  have  quite  aban 
doned  all  piety  whatsoever,  thinking  there  is  no  firm  ground  whereon  to 
build  the  same.  To  prevent  which  mischief  in  time  to  come,  by  bringing 
men  to  a  certainty  (I  mean  such  men  as  own  the  divine  authority  of  the 
Scripture),  and  withal  to  satisfy  the  just  and  pious  desires  of  many  who 
would  fain  understand  the  truth  of  our  religion,  to  the  end  they  might  not 
only  be  built  up  themselves,  but  also  instruct  their  children  and  families 
in  the  same,  I  have  here  (according  to  the  understanding  I  have  gotten  by 
continual  meditation  on  the  word  of  God)  compiled  a  Scripture  Catechism ; 
wherein  I  bring  the  reader  to  a  sure  and  certain  knowledge  of  the  chiefest 
things  pertaining  both  to  belief  and  practice,  whilst  I  myself  assert  nothing 
(as  others  have  done  before  me),  but  only  introduce  the  Scripture  faith 
fully  uttering  its  own  assertions,  which  all  Christians  confess  to  be  of  un 
doubted  truth.  Take  heed,  therefore,  whosoever  thou  art  that  lightest  on 
this  book,  and  there  readest  things  quite  contrary  to  the  doctrines  that 
pass  current  amongst  the  generality  of  Christians  (for  I  confess  most  of 
the  things  here  displayed  have  such  a  tendency),  that  thou  fall  not  foul 
upon  them ;  for  thou  canst  not  do  so  without  falling  foul  upon  the  holy 
Scripture  itself,  inasmuch  as  all  the  answers  throughout  the  whole  Cate 
chism  are  faithfully  transcribed  out  of  it  and  rightly  applied  to  the  ques- 


tions,  as  thou  thyself  mayst  perceive  if  thou  make  a  diligent  inspection 
into  the  several  texts,  with  all  their  circumstances.     Thou  wilt  perhaps 
here  reply,  that  the  texts  which  I  have  cited  do  indeed  in  the  letter  hold 
forth  such  things  as  are  contrary  to  the  doctrines  commonly  received 
amongst  Christians,  but>  they  ought  to  have  a  mystical  or  figurative  inter 
pretation  put  upon  them,  and  then  both  the  doctrines  and  the  texts  of 
Scripture  will  suit  well  enough.     To  which  I  answer,  that  if  we  once  take 
this  liberty  to  impose  our  mystical  or  figurative  interpretations  on  the 
Scripture,  without  express  warrant  of  the  Scripture  itself,  we  shall  have 
no  settled  belief,  but  be  liable  continually  to  be  turned  aside  by  any  one 
that  can  invent  a  new  mystical  meaning  of  the  Scripture,  there  being  no 
certain  rule  to  judge  of  such  meanings  as  there  is  of  the  literal  ones,  nor 
is  there  any  error,  how  absurd  and  impious  soever,  but  may  on  such  terms 
be  accorded  with  the  Scripture.     All  the  abominable  idolatries  of  the 
Papists,  all  the  superstitious  fopperies  of  the  Turks,  all  the  licentious  opi 
nions  and  practices  of  the  Ranters,  may  by  this  means  be  not  only  palliated 
but  defended  by  the  word  of  God.    Certainly,  might  we  of  our  own  heads 
figuratively  interpret  the  Scripture,  when  the  letter  is  neither  repugnant 
to  our  senses  nor  to  the  scope  of  the  respective  texts,  nor  to  a  greater 
number  of  plain  texts  to  the  contrary  (for  in  such  cases  we  must  of  neces 
sity  admit  figures  in  the  sacred  volume  as  well  as  we  do  in  profane  ones, 
otherwise  both  they  and  it  will  clash  with  themselves  or  with  our  senses, 
which  the  Scripture  itself  intimates  to   be   of  infallible   certainty ;   see 
1  John  i.  1-3) ; — might  we,  I  say,  at  our  pleasure  impose  our  figures  and 
allegories  on  the  plain  words  of  God,  the  Scripture  would  in  very  deed  be, 
what  some  blasphemously  affirm  it  to  be,  "  a  nose  of  wax."     For  instance,  „ 
it  is  frequently  asserted  in  the  Scripture  that  God  hath  a  similitude  or 
shape,  hath  his  place  in  the  heavens,  hath  also  affections  or  passions,  as 
love,  hatred,  mercy,  anger,  and  the  like ;  neither  is  any  thing  to  the  con 
trary  delivered  there  unless  seemingly  in  certain  places,  which  neither  for 
number  nor  clearness  are  comparable  unto  those  of  the  other  side.     Why 
now  should  I  depart  from  the  letter  of  the  Scripture  in  these  particulars, 
and  boldly  affirm,  with  the  generality  of  Christians  (or  rather  with  the 
generality  of  such  Christians  only  as,  being  conversant  with  the  false  philo 
sophy  that  reigneth  in  the  schools,  have  then*  understandings  perverted 
with  wrong  notions),  that  God  is  without  a  shape,  in  no  certain  place,  and 
incapable  of  affections  ?     Would  not  this  be  to  use  the  Scripture  like  a 
nose  of  wax,  and  when  of  itself  it  looketh  any  way,  to  turn  it  aside  at  our 
pleasure  ?     And  would  not  God  be  so  far  from  speaking  to  our  capacity 
in  his  word  (which  is  the  usual  refuge  of  the  adversaries  when  in  these  and 
the  like  matters  concerning  God  they  are  pressed  with  the  plain  words  of 
the  Scripture),  as  that  he  would  by  so  doing  render  us  altogether  incapable 
of  finding  out  his  meaning,  whilst  he  spake  one  thing  and  understood  the 
clean  contrary  ?     Yea,  would  he  not  have  taken  the  direct  course  to  make 
men  substitute  an  idol  in  his  stead  (for  the  adversaries  hold  that  to  con 
ceive  of  God  as  having  a  shape,  or  affections,  or  being  in  a  certain  place, 
is  idolatry),  if  he  described  himself  in  the  Scripture  otherwise  than  indeed 
he  is,  without  telling  us  so  much  in  plain  terms,  that  we  might  not  con 
ceive  amiss  of  him  ?     Thus  we  see  that  when  sleep,  which  plainly  argueth 
weakness  and  imperfection,  had  been  ascribed  to  God,  Ps.  xliv.  23,  the 
contrary  is  said  of  him,  Ps.  cxxi.  4.     Again,  when  weariness  had  been 
attributed  to  him,  Isa.  i.  14,  the  same  is  expressly  denied  of  him,  Isa. 
xl.  28.     And  would  not  God,  think  ye,  have  done  the  like  in  those  fore- 
inentioned  things,  were  the  case  the  same  in  them  as  in  the  others  ?     This 


consideration  is  so  pressing,  that  a  certain  author  (otherwise  a  very  learned 
and  intelligent  man)  perceiving  the  -weight  thereof,  and  not  knowing  how 
to  avoid  the  same,  took  up  (though  very  unluckily)  one  erroneous  tenet 
to  maintain  another,  telling  us  in  a  late  book  of  his,  entitled  Conjectura 
Cabalistica,  "  That  for  Moses,  by  occasion  of  his  writings,  to  let  the  Jews 
entertain  a  conceit  of  God  as  in  human  shape,  was  not  any  more  a  way  to 
bring  them  into  idolatry  than  by  acknowledging  man  to  be  God,  as,"  saith 
he,  "our  religion  does  in  Christ."  How  can  this  consist  even  with  conson- 
ancy  to  his  own  principles,  whilst  he  holds  it  to  be  false  that  God  hath 
any  shape,  but  true  that  Christ  is  God ;  for  will  a  false  opinion  of  God  not 
sooner  lead  men  into  idolatry  than  a  true  opinion  of  Christ  ?  But  it  is 
no  marvel  that  this  author,  and  other  learned  men  with  him,  entertain 
such  conceits  of  God  and  Christ  as  are  repugnant  to  the  current  of  the 
Scripture,  whilst  they  set  so  high  a  rate  on  the  sublime,  indeed,  but  un 
certain  notions  of  the  Platonists.  and  in  the  meantime  slight  the  plain  but 
certain  letter  of  the  sacred  writers,  as  being  far  below  the  Divine  Majesty, 
and  written  only  to  comply  with  the  rude  apprehensions  of  the  vulgar, 
unless  by  a  mystical  interpretation  they  be  screwed  up  to  Platonism.  This 
is  the  stone  at  which  the  pride  of  learned  men  hath  caused  them  continu 
ally  to  stumble, — namely,  to  think  that  they  can  speak  more  wisely  and 
worthily  of  God  than  he  hath  spoken  of  himself  in  his  word.  This  hath 
brought  that  more  than  Babylonish  confusion  of  language  into  the  Chris 
tian  religion,  whilst  men  have  framed  those  horrid  and  intricate  expres 
sions,  under  the  colour  of  detecting  and  excluding  heresies,  but  in  truth  to 
put  a  baffle  on  the  simplicity  of  the  Scripture  and  usher  in  heresies,  that 
so  they  might  the  more  easily  carry  on  their  worldly  designs,  which  could 
not  be  effected  but  through  the  ignorance  of  the  people,  nor  the  people 
brought  into  ignorance  but  by  wrapping  up  religion  in  such  monstrous 
terms  as  neither  the  people  nor  they  themselves  that  invented  them  (or  at 
least  took  them  from  the  invention  of  others)  did  understand.  Wherefore, 
there  is  no  possibility  to  reduce  the  Christian  religion  to  its  primitive  in 
tegrity, — a  thing,  though  much  pretended,  yea,  boasted  of  in  reformed 
churches,  yet  never  hitherto  sincerely  endeavoured,  much  less  effected  (in 
that  men  have,  by  severe  penalties,  been  hindered  to  reform  religion  beyond 
such  a  stint  as  that  of  Luther,  or  at  most  that  of  Calvin), — but  by  cashiering 
those  many  intricate  terms  and  devised  forms  of  speaking  imposed  on  our 
-religion,  and  by  wholly  betaking  ourselves  to  the  plainness  of  the  Scrip 
ture  :  for  I  have  long  since  observed  (and  find  my  observation  to  be  true 
and  certain),  that  when,  to  express  matters  of  religion,  men  make  use  of 
words  and  phrases  unheard  of  in  the  Scripture,  they  slily  under  them 
couch  false  doctrines  and  obtrude  them  on  us;  for  without  question  the 
doctrines  of  the'Scripture  can  be  so  aptly  explained  in  no  language  as  that 
of  the  Scripture  itself.  Examine,  therefore,  the  expressions  of  God's  being 
"  infinite  and  incomprehensible,  of  his  being  a  simple  act,  of  his  subsisting 
in  three  persons  or  after  a  threefold  manner,  of  a  divine  circumincession, 
of  an  eternal  generation,  of  an  eternal  procession,  of  an  incarnation,  of  an 
hypostatical  union,  of  a  communication  of  properties,  of  the  mother  of 
God,  of  God  dying,  of  God  made  man,  of  transubstantiation,  of  consub- 
stantiation,  of  original  sin,  of  Christ's  taking  our  nature  on  him,  of  Christ's 
making  satisfaction  to  God  for  our  sins,  both  past,  present,  and  to  come, 
of  Christ's  fulfilling  the  law  for  us,  of  Christ's  being  punished  by  God  for 
us,  of  Christ's  merits  or  his  meritorious  obedience,  both  active  and  passive, 
of  Christ's  purchasing  the  kingdom  of  heaven  for  us,  of  Christ's  enduring 
the  wrath  of  God,  yea,  the  pains  of  a  damned  man,  of  Christ's  rising  from 


the  dead  by  his  own  power,  of  the  ubiquity  of  Christ's  body,  of  apprehend 
ing  and  applying  Christ's  righteousness  to  ourselves  by  faith,  of  Christ's 
being  our  surety,  of  Christ's  paying  our  debts,  of  our  sins  imputed  to 
Christ,  of  Christ's  righteousness  imputed  to  us,  of  Christ's  dying  to  appease 
the  wrath  of  God  and  reconcile  him  to  us,  of  infused  grace,  of  free  grace, 
of  the  world  of  the  elect,  of  irresistible  workings  of  the  Spirit  in  bringing 
men  to  believe,  of  carnal  reason,  of  spiritual  desertions,  of  spiritual  incomes, 
of  the  outgoings  of  God,  of  taking  up  the  ordinance,"  etc.,  and  thou  shalt 
find  that  as  these  forms  of  speech  are  not  owned  by  the  Scripture,  so 
neither  the  things  contained  in  them.  How  excellent,  therefore,  was  that 
advice  of  Paul  to  Timothy  in  his  second  epistle  to  him,  chap.  i.  13,  "  Hold 
fast  the  form  of  sound  words,  which  thou  hast  heard  of  me,  in  faith  and  love 
which  is  in  Christ  Jesus" !  for  if  we  once  let  go  those  forms  of  sound  words 
learned  from  the  apostles,  and  take  up  such  as  have  been  coined  by  others  in 
succeeding  ages,  we  shall  together  [with  them]  part  with  the  apostles'  doc 
trine,  as  woful  experience  hath  taught  us ;  for  after  Constantine  the  Great, 
together  with  the  council  of  Nice,  had  once  deviated  from  the  language  of 
the  Scripture  in  the  business  touching  the  Son  of  God,  calling  him  "  co- 
essential  with  the  Father,"  this  opened  a  gap  for  others  afterward,  under  a 
pretence  of  guarding  the  truth  from  heretics,  to  devise  new  terms  at  plea 
sure;  which  did,  by  degrees,  so  vitiate  the  chastity  and  simplicity  of  our 
faith,  delivered  in  the  Scripture,  that  there  hardly  remained  so  much  as 
one  point  thereof  sound  and  entire.  So  that  as  it  was  wont  to  be  disputed 
in  the  schools,  whether  the  old  ship  of  Theseus  (which  had  in  a  manner 
been  wholly  altered  at  sundry  times,  by  the  accession  of  new  pieces  of 
timber  upon  the  decay  of  the  old)  were  the  same  ship  it  had  been  at  first, 
and  not  rather  another  by  degrees  substituted  in  the  stead  thereof :  in 
like  manner  there  was  so  much  of  the  primitive  truth  worn  away,  by  the 
corruption  that  did,  by  little  and  little,  overspread  the  generality  of  Chris 
tians,  and  so  many  errors  in  stead  thereof  tacked  to  our  religion,  at  several 
times,  that  one  might  justly  question  whether  it  were  the  same  religion 
with  that  which  Christ  and  his  apostles  taught,  and  not  another  since  de 
vised  by  men  and  put  in  the  room  thereof.  But  thanks  be  to  God  through 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who,  amidst  the  universal  corruption  of  our  reli 
gion,  hath  preserved  his  written  word  entire  (for  had  men  corrupted  it, 
they  would  have  made  it  speak  more  favourably  in  behalf  of  their  lusts 
and  worldly  interests  than  it  doth) ;  which  word,  if  we  with  diligence  and 
sincerity  pry  into,  resolving  to  embrace  the  doctrine  that  is  there  plainly 
delivered,  though  all  the  world  should  set  itself  against  us  for  so  doing, 
we  shall  easily  discern  the  truth,  and  so  be  enabled  to  reduce  our  religion 
to  its  first  principles.  For  thus  much  I  perceive  by  mine  own  experience, 
who,  being  otherwise  of  no  great  abilities,  yet  setting  myself,  with  the 
aforesaid  resolution,  for  sundry  years  together  upon  an  impartial  search 
of  the  Scripture,  have  not  only  detected  many  errors,  but  here  presented 
the  reader  with  a  body  of  religion  exactly  transcribed  out  of  the  word  of 
God :  which  body  whosoever  shall  well  ruminate  and  digest  in  his  mind, 
may>  by  the  same  method  wherein  I  have  gone  before  him,  make  a  farther 
inquiry  into  the  oracles  of  God,  and  draw  forth  whatsoever  yet  lies  hid; 
and  being  brought  to  light,  [it]  will  tend  to  the  accomplishment  of  godliness 
amongst  us,  for  at  this  only  all  the  Scripture  aimeth ; — the  Scripture, 
which  all  men  who  have  thoroughly  studied  the  same  must  of  necessity  be 
enamoured  with,  as  breathing  out  the  mere  wisdom  of  God,  and  being  the 
exactest  rule  of  a  holy  life  (which  all  religions  whatsoever  confess  to  be 
the  way  unto  happiness)  that  can  be  imagined,  and  whose  divinity  will 


never,  even  to  the  world's  end,  be  questioned  by  any  but  such  as  are  un 
willing  to  deny  their  worldly  lusts  and  obey  the  pure  and  perfect  precepts 
thereof;  which  obedience  whosoever  shall  perform,  he  shall,  not  only  in 
the  life  to  come,  but  even  in  this  life,  be  equal  unto  angels. 



IN  the  entrance  of  Mr  Biddle's  preface  he  tells  the  reader  very  modestly 
"  That  he  could  never  yet  see  or  hear  of  a  catechism"  (although,  I  presume, 
he  had  seen,  or  heard  at  least,  of  one  or  two  written  by  Faustus  Socinus, 
though  not  completed ;  of  one  by  Valentinus  Smalcius,  commonly  called 
"  The  Racovian  Catechism,"  from  whence  many  of  his  questions  and  answers 
are  taken  ;  and  of  an  "  Exposition  of  the  Articles  of  Faith,  in  the  Creed 
called  the  Apostles',  in  way  of  catechism,  by  Jonas  Schlichtingius,"  pub 
lished  in  French,  anno  1646,  in  Latin,  anno  1651)  "from  whence  the  true 
grounds  of  Christian  religion  might  be  learned,  as  it  is  delivered  in  Scrip 
ture  ;"  and  therefore,  doubtless,  all  Christians  have  cause  to  rejoice  at 
the  happy  product  of  Mr  B.'s  pains,  wherewith  he  now  acquaints  them, 
ushered  in  with  this  modest  account,  whereby  at  length  they  may  know 
their  own  religion,  wherein  as  yet  they  have  not  been  instructed  to 
any  purpose.  And  the  reason  of  this  is,  because  "  all  other  catechisms 
are  stuffed  with  many  supposals  and  traditions,  the  least  part  of  them 
being  derived  from  the  word  of  God,"  Mr  B.  being  judge.  And  this  is 
the  common  language  of  his  companions,  comparing  themselves  and  their 
own  writings  with  those  of  other  men.1  The  common  language  they  de 
light  in  is,  "  Though  Christians  have  hitherto  thought  otherwise." 

Whether  we  have  reason  to  stand  to  this  determination,  and  acquiesce 
in  this  censure  and  sentence,  the  ensuing  considerations  of  what  Mr  B. 
substitutes  in  the  room  of  those  catechisms  which  he  here  rejects  will 
evince  and  manifest.  But  to  give  countenance  to  this  humble  entrance 
into  his  work,  he  tells  his  reader  "  That  councils,  convocations,  and  assem 
blies  of  divines,  have  justled  out  the  Scripture,  and  framed  confessions  of 
faith  according  to  their  own  fancies  and  interests,  getting  them  confirmed 
by  the  civil  magistrate;  according  unto  which  confessions  all  catechisms 
are  and  have  been  framed,  without  any  regard  to  the  Scripture."  What 
"councils"  Mr  B.  intends  he  informs  us  not,  nor  what  it  is  that  in  them 
he  chiefly  complains  of.  If  he  intend  some  only,  such  as  the  apostatizing 
times  of  the  church  saw,  he  knows  he  is  not  opposed  by  them  with  whom 
he  hath  to  do,  nor  yet  if  he  charge  them  all  for  some  miscarriages  in  them 
or  about  them.  If  all,  as  that  of  the  apostles  themselves,  Acts  xv.,  toge 
ther  with  the  rest  that  for  some  ages  followed  after,  and  that  as  to  the 
doctrine  by  them  delivered,  fall  under  his  censure,  we  have  nothing  but 

1  "Quicunquc  sacras  literas  assiduamanuversat,  quantumvis  nescio  quos  catechismos, 
vel  locos  communes  et  commentaries  quam  familiarissimos  sibi  reddiderit,  is  statimcum 
nostrorum  libros  vel  semel  inspexerit,  intelliget  quantum  distant  sera  lupinis." — Valent. 
Smalc.  Res.  Orat.  Vogel.  et  Peuschel.  Rac.  anno  1617,  p.  34.  "  Scripta  haec,  Dei  gloriam  et 
Christi  Domini  nostri  honorem,  ac  ipsam  nostram  salutem,  ab  omni  traditionum  human, 
arum  labe,  ipsa  divina  veritate  literis  sacris  comprehensa  repurgare  nituntur,  et  expe. 
ditissima  explicandse  Dei  glorias,  honoris  Christo  Domino  nostro  asserendi,  et  salutis 
conscquendae  ratione  exccrpta,  ac  omnibus  proposita  earn  ipsissima  sacrarum  literarum 
authoritate  sancire  et  stabilire  conantur." — Hieron.  Moscorov.  Ep.  Dedic.  Cat.  Rac.  ad 
Jacob.  M  B.  R.  nomine  et  jussu  Ecclesise  Pplon.  "  Neque  porro  quemquam  esse  arbi- 
tror,  qui  in  tot  ac  tantis  Christianas  religionis  placitis,  a  reliquis  hominibus  dissentiat, 
in  quot  quantisque  ego  dissentio." — Socin.  Ep.  ad  Squarcialup.  anno  1581. 


the  testimony  of  Mr  B.  to  induce  us  to  a  belief  of  this  insinuation.1  His 
testimony  in  things  of  this  nature  will  be  received  only  by  them  who  re 
ceive  his  doctrine. 

What  I  have  to  offer  on  this  account  I  have  spoken  otherwhere.  That 
the  confessions  of  faith  which  the  first  general  councils,  as  they  are  called, 
during  the  space  of  four  hundred  years  and  upward,  composed  and  put 
forth,  were  "  framed  according  to  the  fancies  and  interests  of  men,"  be 
side  the  word,  is  Mr  B.'s  fancy,  and  his  interest  to  have  it  so  esteemed. 
The  faith  he  professeth,  or  rather  the  infidelity  he  has  fallen  into,  was 
condemned  in  them  all,  and  that  upon  the  occasion  of  its  then  first  com 
ing  into  the  world ;  "  Hinc  illse  lacrimae  : "  if  they  stand,  he  must  fall. 
"  That  the  catechisms  of  latter  days"  (I  suppose  he  intends  those  in  use 
amongst  the  reformed  churches)  "did  wholly  omit  the  Scripture,  or  brought 
it  in  only  for  a  show,  not  one  quotation  amongst  many  being  a  whit  to 
the  purpose,"  you  have  the  same  testimony  for  as  for  the  assertions  fore 
going.2  He  that  will  say  this,  had  need  some  other  way  evince  that  he 
makes  conscience  of  what  he  says,  or  that  he  dare  not  say  any  thing,  so 
it  serve  his  turn.  Only  Mr  B.  hath  quoted  Scripture  to  the  purpose ! 
To  prove  God  to  be  "  finite,  limited,  included  in  heaven,  of  a  visible  shape, 
ignorant  of  things  future,  obnoxious  to  turbulent  passions  and  affections," 
are  some  of  his  quotations  produced ;  for  the  like  end  and  purpose  are 
the  most  of  the  rest  alleged.  Never,  it  seems,  was  the  Scripture  alleged 
to  any  purpose  before !  And  these  things,  through  the  righteous  hand  of 
God  taking  vengeance  on  an  unthankful  generation,  not  delighting  in  the 
light  and  truth  which  he  hath  sent  forth,  do  we  hear  and  read.  Of  those 
who  have  made  bold  ax/vjjra  KivsTv,  and  to  shake  the  fundamentals  of  gos 
pel  truths  or  the  mystery  of  grace,  we  have  daily  many  examples.  The 
number  is  far  more  scarce  of  them  who  have  attempted  to  blot  out  those 
xoivai  evvoiai,  or  ingrafted  notions  of  mankind,  concerning  the  perfec 
tions  of  God,  which  Mr  B.  opposeth.  "  Fabulas  vulgaris  nequitia  non 
invenit."  An  opposition  to  the  first  principles  of  rational  beings  must 
needs  be  talked  of.  Other  catechists,  besides  himself,  Mr  B.  tells  you, 
"  have  written  with  so  much  oscitancy  and  contempt  of  the  Scripture, 
that  a  considering  man  will  question  whether  they  gave  any  heed  to 
what  they  wrote  themselves,  or  refused  to  make  use  of  their  reason, 
and  presumed  others  would  do  so  also."  And  so  you  have  the  sum  of  his 
judgment  concerning  all  other  catechisms,  besides  his  own,  that  he  hath 
either  seen  or  heard  of.  "  They  are  all  fitted  to  confessions  of  faith,  com 
posed  according  to  the  fancies  and  interests  of  men,  written  without  attend 
ing  to  the  Scripture  or  quoting  it  to  any  purpose,  their  authors,  like 
madmen,  not  knowing  what  they  wrote,  and  refusing  to  make  use  of  their 
reason  that  they  might  so  do."  And  this  is  the  modest,  humble  entrance 
of  Mr  B.'s  preface. 

All  that  have  gone  before  him  were  knaves,  fools,  idiots,  madmen.  The 
proof  of  these  assertions  you  are  to  expect.  When  a  philosopher  pressed 
Diogenes  with  this  sophism,  "  What  J  am,  thou  art  not ;  I  am  a  man, 
therefore  thou  art  not,"  he  gave  him  no  other  answer  but,  "  Begin  with 
me,  and  the  conclusion  will  be  true."  Mr  B.  is  a  Master  of  Arts,  and 
knew,  doubtless,  that  such  assertions  as  might  be  easily  turned  upon  him 
self  are  of  no  use  to  any  but  those  who  have  not  aught  else  to  say.  Per 
haps  Mr  B.  speaks  only  to  them  of  the  same  mind  with  himself ;  and  then, 

1  "ATDO-OV  ya.p,  i]  t  avros  itieHfros,  •'  vovrov  \iyei  itrevrui  -giara't. — Arist.  Rhet.  lib.  iii. 
cap.  xv. 
»  "Calumniate  fortiter;  aliquid  adhserebit." 


indeed,  as  Socrates  said,  it  was  no  hard  thing  to  commend  the  Athenians 
before  the  Athenians,  but  to  commend  them  before  the  Lacedaemonians 
was  difficult.1  No  more  is  it  any  great  undertaking  to  condemn  men  sound 
in  the  faith  unto  Socinians ;  before  others  it  will  not  prove  so  easy. 

It  is  not  incumbent  on  me  to  defend  any,  much  less  all  the  catechisms 
that  have  been  written  by  learned  men  of  the  reformed  religion.  That 
there  are  errors  in  some,  mistakes  in  others ;  that  some  are  more  clear, 
plain,  and  scriptural  than  others,  I  grant.  All  of  them  may  have,  have 
had,  their  use  in  their  kind.  That  in  any  of  them  there  is  any  thing 
taught  inconsistent  with  communion  with  God,  or  inevitably  tending  to 
the  impairing  of  faith  and  love,  Mr  B.  is  not,  I  presume,  such  a  p/Ao- 
irovog  as  to  undertake  to  demonstrate.  I  shall  only  add,  that  notwith 
standing  the  vain  plea  of  having  given  all  his  answers  in  the  express 
words  of  Scripture  (whereby,  with  the  foolish  bird,  he  hides  his  head  from 
the  fowler,  but  leaves  his  whole  monstrous  body  visible,  the  teaching  part 
of  his  Catechism  being  solely  in  the  insinuating,  ensnaring,  captious  ques 
tions  thereof,  leading  the  understanding  of  the  reader  to  a  misapprehen 
sion  and  misapplication  of  the  words  of  the  Scripture,  it  being  very  easy 
to  make  up  the  grossest  blasphemy  imaginable  out  of  the  words  of  the 
Scripture  itself),  I  never  found,  saw,  read,  or  heard  of  any  so  grossly  per 
verting  the  doctrine  of  the  Scripture  concerning  God  and  all  his  ways 
as  those  of  Mr  B.'s  do  ;  for  in  sundry  particulars  they  exceed  those  men 
tioned  before  of  Socinus,  Smalcius,  Schlichtingius,  which  had  justly  gotten 
the  repute  of  the  worst  in  the  world.  And  for  an  account  of  my  reason  of 
this  persuasion  I  refer  the  reader  to  the  ensuing  considerations  of  them. 

This,  then,  being  the  sad  estate  of  Christians,  so  misinformed  by  such 
vile  varlets  as  have  so  foully  deceived  them  and  misled  them,  as  above 
mentioned,  what  is  to  be  done  and  what  course  to  be  taken  to  bring  in 
light  into  the  world,  and  to  deliver  men  from  the  sorrowful  condition 
whereinto  they  have  been  catechised  ?  For  this  end,  he  tells  the  reader, 
doth  he  show  himself  to  the  world  (Qtb$  a<nrb  /A^avTjg),  to  undeceive  them, 
and  to  bring  them  out  of  all  their  wanderings  unto  some  certainty  of  re 
ligion.2  This  he  discourses,  pp.  4,  5.  The  reasons  he  gives  you  of  this 
undertaking  are  two  : — 1.  "  To  bring  men  to  a  certainty;"  2.  "  To  satisfy 
the  pious  desire  of  some  who  would  fain  know  the  truth  of  our  religion." 
The  way  he  fixes  on  for  the  compassing  of  the  end  proposed  is  : — 1.  "  By 
asserting  nothing;"  2.  "  By  introducing  the  plain  texts  of  Scripture  to 
speak  for  themselves."  Each  briefly  may  be  considered. 

1.  What  fluctuating  persons  are  they,  not  yet  come  to  any  certainty 
in  religion,  whom  Mr  B.  intends  to  deal  withal  ?  Those,  for  the  most 
part,  of  them  who  seem  to  be  intended  in  such  undertakings,  are  fully 
persuaded  from  the  Scripture  of  the  truth  of  those  things  wherein  they 
have  been  instructed.  Of  these,  some,  I  have  heard,  have  been  unsettled 
by  Mr  B.,  but  that  he  shall  ever  settle  any  (there  being  no  consistency 
in  error  or  falsehood)  is  impossible.  Mr  B.  knows  there  is  no  one  of  the 
catechists  he  so  decries  but  directs  them  whom  he  so  instructs  to  the 
Scriptures,  and  settles  their  faith  on  the  word  of  God  alone,  though  they 
labour  to  help  their  faith  and  understanding  by  opening  of  it;  whereunto 
also  they  are  called.  I  fear  Mr  B.'s  certainty  will  at  length  appear  to  be 
scepticism,  and  his  settling  of  men  to  be  the  unsettling  ;  that  his  conver- 

1  Oo  %a\i<rav  'A4vvx.iovs  In  'Afvyaioii  lfa.ivt~t,  «XX"  l»  AaxeSa/^ov/a/j. — Socrat.  apud  Plat, 
in  Menexen.  Cit.  Arist.  Rhet.  lib.  iii.  cap.  xiv. 

*  "  Multa  passim  ab  ultima  vetustate  vitia  admissa  sunt,  qvue  nemoprscter  me  indicabit." 
— Scalig. 


sions  are  from  the  faith ;  and  that  in  this  very  book  he  aims  more  to  ac 
quaint  men  with  his  questions  than  the  Scripture  answers.1  But  he  says, — 

2.  Those  whom  he  aims  to  bring  to  this  certainty  are  "such  as  would 
fain  understand  the  truth  of  our  religion."   If  by  "  our  religion"  he  means 
the  religion  of  himself  and  his  followers  (or  rather  masters),  the  Socinians, 
I  am  sorry  to  hear  that  any  are  so  greedy  of  its  acquaintance. 3     Happily 
this  is  but  a  pretence,  such  as  his  predecessors  in  this  work  have  commonly 
used.    [As]  for  understanding  the  truth  of  it,  they  will  find  in  the  issue  what 
an  endless  work  they  have  undertaken.     "  Who  can  make  that  straight 
which  is  crooked,  or  number  that  which  is  wanting  ?"   If  by  "our  religion" 
he  means  the  Christian  religion,  it  may  well  be  inquired  who  they  are,  with 
their  "just  and  pious  desires,"  who  yet  understand  not  the  truth  of  Christian 
religion  ?  that  is,  that  it  is  the  only  true  religion.    When  we  know  these 
Turks,  Jews,  Pagans,  which  Mr  B.  hath  to  deal  withal,  we  shall  be  able 
to  judge  of  what  reason  he  had  to  labour  to  satisfy  their  "just  and  pious 
desires."  I  would  also  willingly  be  informed  how  they  came  to  so  high  an 
advancement  in  our  religion  as  to  desire  to  be  brought  up  in  it,  and  to 
be  able  to  instruct  others,  when  as  yet  they  do  not  understand  the  truth 
of  it,  or  are  not  satisfied  therein.     And, — 

3.  As  these  are  admirable  men,  so  the  way  he  takes  for  their  satisfac 
tion  is  admirable  also;  that  is,  by  "asserting  nothing!"  He  that  asserts  no 
thing  proves  nothing;  for  that  which  any  one  proves,  that  he  asserts.    In 
tending,  then,  to  bring  men  to  a  certainty  who  yet  understand  not  the 
truth  of  our  religion,  he  asserts  nothing,  proves  nothing  (as  is  the  manner 
of  some),  but  leaves  them  to  themselves  ; — a  most  compendious  way  of 
teaching  (for  whose  attainment  Mr  B.  needed  not  to  have  been  Master 
of  Arts),  if >  it  proves  effectual !     But  by  not  asserting,  it  is  evident  Mr 
B.  intends  not  silence.     He  hath  said  too  much  to  be  so  interpreted. 
Only  what  he  hath  spoken,  he  hath  done  it  in  a  sceptical  way  of  inquiry  ; 
wherein,  though  the  intendment  of  his  mind  be  evident,  and  all  his  queries 
may  be  easily  resolved  into  so  many  propositions  or  assertions,  yet  as  his 
words  lie,  he  supposes  he  may  speak  truly  that  he  asserts  nothing.     Of  the 
truth,  then,  of  this  assertion,  that  he  doth  not  assert  any  thing,  the  reader 
will  judge.     And  this  is  the  path  to  atheism  which,  of  all  others,  is  most 
trod  and  beaten  in  the  days  wherein  we  live.     A  liberty  of  judgment  is 
pretended,  and  queries  are  proposed,  until  nothing  certain  be  left,  nothing 
unshaken.    But, — 

4.  He  "  introduces  the  Scripture  faithfully  uttering  its  own  assertions." 
If  his  own  testimony  concerning  his  faithful  dealing  may  be  taken,  this 
must  pass.     The  express  words  of  the  Scripture,  I  confess,  are  produced, 
but  as  to  Mr  B.'s  faithfulness  in  their  production,  I  have  sundry  excep 
tions  to  make ;  as, — 

(1.)  That  by  his  leading  questions,  and  application  of  the  Scripture  to 
them,  he  hath  utterly  perverted  the  scope  and  intendment  of  the  places 
urged.  Whereas  he  pretends  not  to  assert  or  explain  the  Scripture,  he 
most  undoubtedly  restrains  the  signification  of  the  places  by  him  al 
leged  unto  the  precise  scope  which  in  his  sophistical  queries  he  hath  in 
cluded.  And  in  such  a  way  of  procedure,  what  may  not  the  serpentine  wits 

1  "  Hoc  illis  negotium  est,  non  ethnicos  convertendi,  sed  nostros  evertendi."— TertuL 
de  Prescr.  ad  Hser. 

»  "  Expressere  id  nobis  vota  multorutn,  multseque  etiam  a  remotissimis  orbis  partibus 
ad  nos  transmissas  preces."— Preefat  ad  Cat.  Rac. 

"  Nam  rex  Seleucus  me  opere  oravit  maxumo, 
Ut  sibilatroues  cogerem  et  conscriberem. " 

Pyrgopol.  in  Plaut.  Mil  Glo.  Act.  i.  ad  fin. 


of  men  pretend  to  a  confirmation  of  from  Scripture,  or  any  other  book  that 
hath  been  written  about  such  things  as  the  inquiries  are  made  after?  It 
were  easy  to  give  innumerable  instances  of  this  kind,  but  we  fear  God, 
and  dare  not  to  make  bold  with  him  or  his  word. 

(2.)  Mr  B.  pretending  to  give  an  account  of  the  "  chiefest  things  per 
taining  to  belief  and  practice,"  doth  yet  propose  no  question  at  all  con 
cerning  many  of  the  most  important  heads  of  our  religion,  and  whereunto 
the  Scripture  speaks  fully  and  expressly,  or  proposes  his  thoughts  in  the 
negative,  leading  on  the  scriptures  from  whence  he  makes  his  objections 
to  the  grand  truths  he  opposeth,  concealing,  as  was  said,  the  delivery  of 
them  in  the  Scripture  in  other  places  innumerable  ;  so  insinuating  to  the 
men  of  "just  and  pious  desires"  with  whom  he  hath  to  do  that  the  Scripture 
is  silent  of  them.  That  this  is  the  man's  way  of  procedure,  in  reference 
to  the  deity  of  Christ  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  satisfaction  and  merit 
of  Christ,  the  corruption  of  nature,  and  efficacy  of  grace,  with  many  other 
most  important  heads  of  Christian  religion,  will  be  fully  manifest  in  our 
consideration  of  the  several  particulars  as  they  shall  occur  in  the  method 
Avherein  by  him  they  are  handled. 

(3.)  What  can  be  concluded  of  the  mind  of  God  in  the  Scripture,  by 
cutting  off  any  place  or  places  of  it  from  their  dependence,  connection, 
and  tendency,  catching  at  those  words  which  seem  to  confirm  what  we 
would  have  them  so  to  do  (whether,  in  the  proper  order  wherein  of  God 
they  are  set  and  fixed,  they  do  in  the  least  cast  an  eye  towards  the  thesis 
which  they  are  produced  to  confirm  or  no),  might  easily  be  manifested  by 
innumerable  instances,  were  not  the  vanity  of  such  a  course  evident  to  all. 

On  the  consideration  of  these  few  exceptions  to  Mr  B.'s  way  of  proce 
dure,  it  will  easily  appear  what  little  advantage  he  hath  given  him  there 
by,  and  how  unjust  his  pretence  is,  which  by  this  course  he  aims  to  prevail 
upon  men  withal.  This  he  opens,  page  6 :  "None,"  saith  he,  "  can  fall  foul 
upon  the  things  contained  in  this  Catechism"  (which  he  confesseth  to  be 
"quite  contrary  to  the  doctrine  that  passeth  current  among  the  generality 
of  Christians"),  "  as  they  are  here  displayed,  because  the  answers  are  tran 
scribed  out  of  the  Scriptures."  But  Mr  B.  may  be  pleased  to  take  notice 
that  the  "displaying,"  as  he  calls  it,  of  his  doctrines  is  the  work  of  his  ques 
tions,  and  not  of  the  words  of  Scripture  produced  to  confirm  them,  which 
have  a  sense  cunningly  and  subtilely  imposed  on  them  by  his  queries,  or 
are  pointed  and  restrained  to  the  things  which  in  the  place  of  their  delivery 
they  look  not  towards  in  any  measure.  We  shall  undoubtedly  find,  in  the 
process  of  this  business,  that  Mr  B.'s  questions,  being  found  guilty  of  treason 
against  God,  will  not  be  allowed  sanctuary  in  the  answers  which  they  la 
bour  to  creep  into;  and  that,  they  disclaiming  their  protection,  they  may  be 
pursued,  taken,  and  given  up  to  the  justice  and  severity  of  truth,  without 
the  least  profanation  of  their  holiness.  A  murderer  may  be  plucked  from 
the  horns  of  the  altar. 

Nor  is  that  the  only  answer  insisted  on  for  the  removal  of  Mr  B.'s 
sophistry,  which  he  mentions,  p.  7,  and  pursues  it  for  three  or  four  leaves 
onward  of  his  preface,  namely,  "  That  the  scriptures  which  he  urgeth  do  in 
the  letter  hold  out  such  things  as  he  allegeth  them  to  prove,  but  yet  they 
must  be  figuratively  interpreted."  For  Mr  B.'s  "  mystical  sense,"  I  know 
not  what  he  intends  by  it,  or  by  whom  it  is  urged.  This  is  applicable 
solely  to  the  places  he  produceth  for  the  description  of  God  and  his  attri 
butes,  concerning  whom  that  some  expressions  of  Scripture  are  to  be  so 
interpreted  himself  confesseth,  p.  13;  and  we  desire  to  take  leave  to 
inquire  whether  some  others,  beside  what  Mr  B.  allows,  may  not  be  of  the 


same  consideration.  In  other  things,  for  the  most  part,  vie  have  nothing 
at  all  to  do  with  so  much  as  the  interpretation  of  the  places  he  mentions, 
but  only  to  remove  the  grossly  sophistical  insinuations  of  his  queries.  For 
instance,  when  Mr  B.  asks,  "Whether  Christ  Jesus  was  a  man  or  no?" 
and  allegeth  express  Scripture  affirming  that  he  was,  we  say  not  that  the 
Scripture  must  have  a  figurative  interpretation,  but  that  Mr  B.  is  grossly 
sophistical,  concluding  from  the  assertion  of  Christ's  human  nature  to  the 
denial  of  his  divine,  and  desperately  injurious  to  the  persons  with  whom 
he  pretends  he  hath  to  do,  who  as  yet  "  understand  not  the  truth  of  our 
religion,"  in  undertaking  to  declare  to  them  the  special  "  chief  things  of 
belief  and  practice,"  and  hiding  from  them  the  things  of  the  greatest 
moment  to  their  salvation,  and  which  the  Scripture  speaks  most  plentifully 
unto,  by  not  stating  any  question  or  making  any  such  inquiry  as  their 
affirmation  might  be  suited  unto.  The  like  instance  may  be  given  in  all 
the  particulars  wherein  Mr  B.  is  departed  from  "  the  faith  once  delivered 
to  the  saints."  His  whole  following  discourse,  then,  to  the  end  of  p.  13, 
wherein  he  decries  the  answer  to  his  way  of  procedure,  which  himself  had 
framed,  he  might  have  spared.  It  is  true,  we  do  affirm  that  there  are 
figurative  expressions  in  the  Scripture  (and  Mr  B.  dares  not  say  the  con 
trary),  and  that  they  are  accordingly  to  be  interpreted ;  not  that  they 
are  to  have  a  mystical  sense  put  upon  them,  but  that  the  literal  sense  is  to 
be  received,  according  to  the  direction  of  the  figure  which  is  in  the  words. 
That  these  words  of  our  Saviour,  "This  is  my  body,"  are  figurative,  I  sup 
pose  Mr  B.  will  not  deny.  Interpret  them  according  to  the  figurative 
import  of  them,  and  that  interpretation  gives  you  the  literal,  and  not  a 
mystical  sense,  if  such  figures  belong  to  speech  and  not  to  sense.  That 
sense,  I  confess,  may  be  spiritually  understood  (then  it  is  saving)  or  other 
wise  ;  but  this  doth  not  constitute  different  senses  in  the  words,  but  only 
denote  a  difference  in  the  understandings  of  men.  But  all  this,  in  hypotlmi, 
Mr  B.  fully  grants,  p.  9 ;  so  that  there  is  no  danger,  by  asserting  it,  to  cast 
the  least  thought  of  uncertainty  on  the  word  of  God.  But,  p.  10,  he  gives 
you  an  instance  wherein  this  kind  of  interpretation  must  by  no  means  be 
allowed,  namely,  in  the  Scripture  attributions  of  a  shape  and  similitude  (that 
is,  of  eyes,  ears,  hands,  feet)  unto  God,  with  passions  and  affections  like  unto 
us ;  which  that  they  are  not  proper,  but  figuratively  to  be  interpreted,  he 
tells  you,  p.  10-12,  "  those  affirm  who  are  perverted  by  false  philosophy, 
and  make  a  nose  of  wax  of  the  Scripture,  which  plainly  affirms  such  things 
of  God."  In  what  sense  the  expressions  of  Scripture  intimated  concerning 
God  are  necessarily  to  be  received  and  understood,  the  ensuing  considera 
tions  will  inform  the  reader.  For  the  present,  I  shall  only  say  that  I  do 
not  know  scarce  a  more  unhappy  instance  in  his  whole  book  that  he 
could  have  produced  than  this,  wherein  he  hath  been  blasphemously  in 
jurious  unto  God  and  his  holy  word.  And  herein  we  shall  deal  with  him 
from  Scripture  itself,  right  reason,1  and  the  common  consent  of  mankind. 
How  remote  our  interpretations  of  the  places  by  him  quoted  for  his  pur 
pose  are  from  wresting  the  Scriptures,  or  turning  them  aside  from  their 
purpose,  scope,  and  intendment,  will  also  in  due  time  be  made  manifest. 

We  say,  indeed,  as  Mr  B.  observes,  that  in  those  kinds  of  expressions  God 
" condescendeth  to  accommodate  his  ways  and  proceedings"  (not  his 
essence  and  being)  "to  our  apprehensions;"  wherein  we  are  very  far  from 
saying  that  "he  speaks  one  thing  and  intends  the  clean  contrary,"  but  only 

'O  yap  -ran  dox.ti,  TCUTH  iiv<x.t  Qaftiv.    'O  Jf  amifut  TO.UTIJJI  r»jv  ir'urriv  el  vavv  furTorifat 
1ti. — Ariat.  Nicoin.  iii. 


that  the  things  that  he  ascribes  to  himself,  for  our  understanding  and  the 
accommodation  of  his  proceedings  to  the  manner  of  men,  are  to  be  under 
stood  in  him  and  of  them  in  that  which  they  denote  of  perfection,  and 
not  in  respect  of  that  which  is  imperfect  and  weak.1  For  instance,  when 
God  says,  "  his  eyes  run  to  and  fro,  to  behold  the  sons  of  men,"  we  do 
not  say  that  he  speaks  one  thing  and  understands  another ;  but  only  be 
cause  we  have  our  knowledge  and  acquaintance  with  things  by  our  eyes 
looking  up  and  down,  therefore  doth  he  who  hath  not  eyes  of  flesh  as  we 
have,  nor  hath  any  need  to  look  up  and  down  to  acquaint  himself  with 
them,  all  whose  ways  are  in  his  own  hand,  nor  can  without  blasphemy  be 
supposed  to  look  from  one  thing  to  another,  choose  to  express  his  know 
ledge  of  and  intimate  acquaintance  with  all  things  here  below,  in  and  by 
his  own  infinite  understanding,  in  the  way  so  suited  to  our  apprehension. 
Neither  are  these  kinds  of  expressions  in  the  least  an  occasion  of  idolatry, 
or  do  give  advantage  to  any  of  creating  any  shape  of  God  in  their  ima 
ginations,  God  having  plainly  and  clearly,  in  the  same  word  of  his  wherein 
these  expressions  are  used,  discovered  that  of  himself,  his  nature,  being, 
and  properties,  which  will  necessarily  determine  in  what  sense  these  ex 
pressions  are  to  be  understood;  as,  in  the  consideration  of  the  several 
particulars  in  the  ensuing  discourse,  the  reader  will  find  evinced.  And  we 
are  yet  of  the  mind,  that  to  conceive  of  God  as  a  great  man,  with  mouth, 
eyes,  hands,  legs,  etc.,  in  a  proper  sense,  sitting  in  heaven,  shut  up  there, 
troubled,  vexed,  moved  up  and  down  with  sundry  passions,  perplexed 
about  the  things  that  are  to  come  to  pass,  which  he  knows  not, — which 
is  th$  notion  of  God  that  Mr  B.  labours  to  deliver  the  world  from  their 
darkness  withal, — is  gross  idolatry,  whereunto  the  scriptural  attributions 
unto  God  mentioned  give  not  the  least  countenance ;  as  will  in  the  pro 
gress  of  our  discourse  more  fully  appear.  And  if  it  be  true,  which  Mr  B. 
intimates,  that  "things  implying  imperfection"  (speaking  of  sleep  and  being 
weary)  "are  not  properly  attributed  to  God,"  I  doubt  not  but  I  shall  easily 
evince  that  the  same  line  of  refusal  is  to  pass  over  the  visible  shape  and 
turbulent  affections  which  are  by  him  ascribed  to  him.  But  of  these  more 
particularly  in  their  respective  places. 

But  he  adds,  pp.  13,  14,  "  That  this  consideration  is  so  pressing,  that  a 
certain  learned  author,  in  his  book  entitled  'Conjectura  Cabalistica/  affirms 
that  for  Moses,  by  occasion  of  his  writings,  to  let  the  Jews  entertain  a  conceit 
of  God  as  in  human  shape  was  not  any  more  a  way  to  bring  them  into  ido 
latry  than  by  acknowledging  man  to  be  God,  as  our  religion  doth  in  Christ ;" 
which  plea  of  his  Mr  B.  exagitates  in  the  pages  following.  That  learned 
gentleman  is  of  age  and  ability  to  speak  for  himself:  for  mine  own  part,  I 
am  not  so  clear  in  what  he  affirms  as  to  undertake  it  for  him,  though  other 
wise  very  ready  to  serve  him  upon  the  account  which  I  have  of  his  worth 
and  abilities ;  though  I  may  freely  say  I  suppose  they  might  be  better  exer 
cised  than  in  such  cabalistical  conjectures  as  the  book  of  his  pointed  unto 
is  full  of.  But  who  am  I,  that  judge  another  ?  We  must  every  one  give 
an  account  of  himself  and  his  labours  to  God ;  and  the  fire  shall  try  our 
works  of  what  sort  they  are.  I  shall  not  desire  to  make  too  much  work 
for  the  fire.  For  the  present,  I  deny  that  Moses  in  his  writings  doth  give 
any  occasion  to  entertain  a  conceit  of  God  as  one  of  a  human  shape; 
neither  did  the  Jews  ever  stumble  into  idolatry  on  that  account.  They 
sometimes,  indeed,  changed  their  glory  for  that  which  was  not  God ;  but 
whilst  they  worshipped  that  God  that  revealed  himself  by  Moses,  Jehovah, 

1  "Quse  dicuntur  de  Deo  Mfu^naLiZt  intclligenda  sunt  Simplest."1 
VOL.  XII.  5 


Ehejeh,  it  doth  not  appear  that  ever  they  entertained  in  their  thoughts  any 
thing  butpurumnumen,  a  most  simple,  spiritual,  eternal  Being,  as  I  shall  give 
a  farther  account  afterward.  Though  they  intended  to  worship  Jehovah 
both  in  the  calf  in  the  wilderness  and  in  those  at  Bethel,  yet  that  they 
ever  entertained  any  thoughts  that  God  had  such  a  shape 'as  that  which 
they  framed  to  worship  him  by  is  madness  to  imagine.  For  though  Moses 
sometimes  speaks  of  God  in  the  condescension  before  mentioned,  express 
ing  his  power  by  his  arm,  and  bow,  and  sword,  his  knowledge  and 
understanding  by  his  eye,  yet  he  doth  in  so  many  places  caution  them 
with  whom  he  had  to  do  of  entertaining  any  thoughts  of  any  bodily 
similitude  of  God,  that  by  any  thing  delivered  by  him  there  is  not  the 
least  occasion  administered  for  the  entertaining  of  such  a  conceit  as  is 
intimated.  Neither  am  I  clear  in  the  theological  predication  which  that 
learned  person  hath  chosen  to  parallel  with  the  Mosaical  expressions  of 
God's  shape  and  similitude,  concerning  man  being  God.  Though  we 
acknowledge  him  who  is  man  to  be  God,  yet  we  do  not  acknowledge  man 
to  be  God.  Christ  under  this  reduplication,  as  man,  is  not  a  person,  and  so 
not  God.  To  say  that  man  is  God,  is  to  say  that  the  humanity  and  Deity 
are  the  same.  Whatever  he  is  as  man,  he  is  upon  the  account  of  his  being 
man.  Now,  that  he  who  is  man  is  also  God,  though  he  be  not  God  upon 
the  account  of  his  being  man,  can  give  no  more  occasion  to  idolatry  than 
to  say  that  God  is  infinite,  omnipotent.  For  the  expression  itself,  it  being 
in  the  concrete,  it  may  be  salved  by  the  communication  of  properties;  but 
as  it  lies,  it  may  possibly  be  taken  in  the  abstract,  and  so  is  simply  false. 
Neither  do  I  judge  it  safe  to  use  such  expressions,  unless  it  be  when  the 
grounds  and  reasons  of  them  are  assigned.  But  that  Mr  B.  should  be 
offended  with  this  assertion  I  see  no  reason.  Both  he  and  his  associates 
affirm  that  Jesus  Christ  as  man  (being  in  essence  and  nature  nothing  but 
man)  is  made  a  God ;  and  is  the  object  of  divine  worship  or  religious 
adoration  on  that  account.  I  may  therefore  let  pass  Mr  B.'s  following 
harangue  against  "men's  philosophical  speculations,  deserting  the  Scripture 
in  their  contemplations  of  the  nature  of  God,  as  though  they  could  speak 
more  worthily  of  God  than  he  hath  done  of  himself;"  for  though  it 
may  easily  be  made  appear  that  never  any  of  the  Platonical  philosophers 
spoke  so  unworthily  of  God  or  vented  such  gross,  carnal  conceptions  of 
him  as  Mr  B.  hath  done,  and.  the  gentleman  of  whom  he  speaks  be  well 
able  to  judge  of  what  he  reads,  and  to  free  himself  from  being  entangled 
in  any  of  their  notions,  discrepant  from  the  revelation  that  God  hath  made 
of  himself  in  his  word,  yet  we,  being  resolved  to  try  out  the  whole  matter, 
and  to  put  all  the  differences  we  have  with  Mr  B.  to  the  trial  and  issue 
upon  the  express  testimony  of  God  himself  in  his  word,  are  not  concerned 
in  this  discourse. 

Neither  have  I  any  necessity  to  divert  to  the  consideration  of  his  com 
plaint  concerning  the  bringing  in  of  new  expressions  into  religion,  if  he 
intends  such  as  whose  substance  or  matter,  which  they  do  express,  is  not 
evidently  and  expressly  found  in  the  Scripture.  What  is  the  "  Babylonish 
language,"  what  are  "  the  horrid  and  intricate  expressions,"  which  he 
affirms  to  be  "  introduced  under  a  colour  of  detecting  and  confuting  here 
sies,  but  indeed  to  put  a  baffle  upon  the  simplicity  of  the  Scripture,"  he 
gives  us  an  account  of,  p.  19,  where  we  shall  consider  it  and  them.  In 
general,  words  are  but  the  figures  of  things.  It  is  not  words  and  terms, 
nor  expressions,  but  doctrines  and  things,  we  inquire  after.1  Mr  B.,  I  sup- 

Ovx  iv  #£«,  ^ttaXXov  \i  S/ava/a  x.iiriii  n  ul.rjiia Greg.  Naz. 


pose,  allows  expositions  of  Scripture,  or  else  I  am  sure  he  condemns  him 
self  in  what  he  practises.  His  book  is,  in  his  own  thoughts,  an  exposition 
of  Scripture.  That  this  cannot  be  done  without  varying  the  words  and 
literal  expressions  thereof,  I  suppose  will  not  be  questioned.  To  express 
the  same  thing  that  is  contained  in  any  place  of  Scripture  with  such 
other  words  as  may  give  light  unto  it  in  our  understandings,  is  to  ex 
pound  it.  This  are  we  called  to,  and  the  course  of  it  is  to  continue  whilst 
Christ  continues  a  church  upon  the  earth.  Paul  spake  nothing,  for  the 
substance  of  the  things  he  delivered,  but  what  was  written  in  the  prophets ; 
that  he  did  not  use  new  expressions,  not  to  be  found  in  any  of  the  pro 
phets,  will  not  be  proved.  But  there  is  a  twofold  evil  in  these  expressions : 
"  That  they  are  invented  to  detect  and  exclude  heresies,  as  is  pretended."  If 
heretics  begin  first  to  wrest  Scripture  expressions  to  a  sense  never  received 
nor  contained  in  them,  it  is  surely  lawful  for  them  who  are  willing  to 
"  contend  for  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints"  to  clear  the  mind  of 
God  in  his  word  by  expressions  and  terms  suitable  thereunto  ;x  neither 
have  heretics  carried  on  their  cause  without  the  invention  of  new  words 
and  phrases. 

If  any  shall  make  use  of  any  words,  terms,  phrases,  and  expressions,  in 
and  about  religious  things,  requiring  the  embracing  and  receiving  of  those 
words,  etc.,  by  others,  without  examining  either  the  truth  of  what  by  those 
words,  phrases,  etc.,  they  intend  to  signify  and  express,  or  the  propriety 
of  those  expressions  themselves,  as  to  their  accommodation  for  the  signify 
ing  of  those  things,  I  plead  not  for  them.  It  is  not  in  the  power  of  man 
to  make  any  word  or  expression,  not  \r\ruc,  found  in  the  Scripture,  to 
be  canonical,  and  for  its  own  sake  to  be  embraced  and  received.  *  But 
yet  if  any  word  or  phrase  do  expressly  signify  any  doctrine  or  matter 
contained  in  the  Scripture,  though  the  word  or  phrase  itself  be  not 
in  so  many  letters  found  in  the  Scripture,  that  such  word  or  phrase  may 
Hot  be  used  for  the  explication  of  the  mind  of  God  I  suppose  will  not 
easily  be  proved.  And  this  we  farther  grant,  that  if  any  one  shall  scruple 
the  receiving  and  owning  of  such  expressions,  so  as  to  make  them  the  way 
of  professing  that  which  is  signified  by  them,  and  yet  do  receive  the  thing 
or  doctrine  which  is  by  them  delivered,  for  my  part  I  shall  have  no  con 
test  with  him.  For  instance,  the  word  O/AOOIKT/O;  was  made  use  of  by  the  first 
Nicene  council  to  express  the  unity  of  essence  and  being  that  is  in  the 
Father  and  Son,  the  better  to  obviate  Arius  and  his  followers,  with  their 
q'v  orav  ovx.  qv,  and  the  like  forms  of  speech,  nowhere  found  in  Scripture, 
and  invented  on  set  purpose  to  destroy  the  true  and  eternal  deity  of  the 
Son  of  God.  If,  now,  any  man  should  scruple  the  receiving  of  that  word, 
but  withal  should  profess  that  he  believes  Jesus  Christ  to  be  God,  equal 
to  the  Father,  one  with  him  from  the  beginning,  and  doth  not  explain  him 
self  by  other  terms  not  found  in  the  Scripture,  namely,  that  he  was  "made 
a  God,"  and  is  "  one  with  the  Father  as  to  will,  not  essence,"  and  the  like, 
he  is  like  to  undergo  neither  trouble  nor  opposition  from  me.  We  know 
what  troubles  arose  between  the  eastern  and  western  churches  about  the 

1  THv  arav  eux,  «»,  oftmoinrias.  Homo  deificatus,  etc.,  dixit  Arius.  1.  fiov  £<•  evx  OITUII 
<yi-ytv7,<r$ai.  2.  ETva/  -rort  on  oi/x  jfv,  etc. — Sozorn.  Hist.  Ecclcs.  lib.  i.  cap.  xiv.  p.  215  ; 
Theod.  Hist.  lib.  i.  cap.  ii.  p.  3 ;  Socrat.  Scholast.  Hist.  lib.  i.  cap.  iii.  etc.  ol»  faty.  yap 
tnutriv  TOU  Koyiu  Tau  &i»u  fpo;  oiv@,a'X'ov,  dXXa  Sua  vfoffToifftii  it-tyt,  xoii  oiaipiffiv.  E;  Si  xeii 
a^-u'Tov,  xai  Ssov'ixa.Xti  rat  Xpifrov,  aXXa.  alx  'in  u;  rtft-i!;,  aXXa  tn  ff%iffii,  xai  rn 
liK'ua/ru,  KO.TO.  TO  TKUTa  u.'/./*r,X<ii;  apiffxuv  2;a  Tttv  vwifio\nv  T»j{  fiXicc;. Leont.  de  Sect.  U6 

8  Vide  Calv.  Instit.  lib.  i.  cap.  xiii. ;  Alting.  Theol.  Elenct.  loc.  de  Deo. 


words  "hypostasis"  and  "  persona,"  until  they  understood  on  each  side  that 
by  these  different  words  the  same  thing  was  intended,  and  that  vxoaraaie 
with  the  Greeks  was  not  the  same  as  "  substantia"  with  the  Latins,  nor 
"  persona"  with  the  Latins  the  same  with  ffgoffuxov  among  the  Greeks,  as  to 
their  application  to  the  thing  the  one  and  the  other  expressed  by  these 
terms.  That  such  "monstrous  terms  are  brought  into  our  religion  as  neither 
they  that  invented  them  nor  they  that  use  them  do  understand,"  Mr  B. 
may  be  allowed  to  aver,  from  the  measure  he  hath  taken  of  all  men's  under 
standings,  weighing  them  in  his  own,  and  saying,  "  Thus  far  can  they  go 
and  no  farther,"  "  This  they  can  understand,  that  they  cannot;" — a  preroga 
tive,  as  we  shall  see  in  the  process  of  this  business,  that  he  will  scarcely  . 
allow  to  God  himself  without  his  taking  much  pains  and  labour  about  it. 
I  profess,  for  my  part,  I  have  not  as  yet  the  least  conviction  fallen  upon 
me  that  Mr  B.  is  furnished  with  so  large  an  understanding,  whatever 
he  insinuates  of  his  own  abilities,  as  to  be  allowed  a  dictator  of  what  any 
man  can  or  cannot  understand.  If  his  principle,  or  rather  conclusion,  upon 
which  he  limits  the  understandings  of  men  be  this,  "  What  I  cannot  under 
stand,  that  no  man  else  can,"  he  would  be  desired  to  consider  that  he  is  as 
yet  but  a  young  man,  who  hath  not  had  so  many  advantages  and  helps 
for  the  improving  of  his  understanding  as  some  others  have  had ;  and,  be 
sides,  that  there  are  some  whose  eyes  are  blinded  by  the  god  of  this 
world,  that  they  shall  never  see  or  understand  the  things  of  God,  yea, 
and  that  God  himself  doth  thus  oftentimes  execute  his  vengeance  on  them, 
for  detaining  his  truth  in  unrighteousness. 

But  yet,  upon  this  acquaintance  which  he  hath  with  the  measure  of 
all  men's  understandings,  he  informs  his  reader  that  "  the  only  way  to 
carry  on  the  reformation  of  the  church,  beyond  what  yet  hath  been  done  by 
Luther  or  Calvin,  is  by  cashiering  those  many  intricate  terms  and  devised 
forms  of  speaking,"  which  he  hath  observed  slily  to  couch  false  doctrines, 
and  to  obtrude  them  on  us ;  and,  by  the  way,  that  "this  carrying  on  of  refor 
mation  beyond  the  stint  of  Luther  or  Calvin  was  never  yet  so  much  as  sin 
cerely  endeavoured."  In  the  former  passage,  having  given  out  himself  aa 
a  competent  judge  of  the  understandings  of  all  men,  in  this  he  proceeds  to 
their  hearts.  "  The  reformation  of  the  church,"  saith  he,  "  was  never  sin 
cerely  attempted,  beyond  the  stint  of  Luther  and  Calvin."  Attempted  it 
hath  been,  but  he  knows  all  the  men  and  their  hearts  full  well  who  made 
those  attempts,  and  that  they  never  did  it  sincerely,  but  with  guile  and 
hypocrisy !  Mr  B.  knows  who  those  are  that  say,  "  With  our  tongue 
will  we  prevail ;  our  lips  are  our  own."  To  know  the  hearts  of  men  and 
their  frame  towards  himself,  Mr  B.  instructs  us,  in  his  Catechism,  that 
God  himself  is  forced  to  make  trial  and  experiments ;  but  for  his  own 
part,  without  any  great  trouble,  he  can  easily  pronounce  of  their  sincerity 
or  hypocrisy  in  any  undertaking!  Low  and  vile  thoughts  of  God  will 
quickly  usher  in  light,  proud,  and  foolish  thoughts  concerning  ourselves. 
Luther  and  Calvin  were  men  whom  God  honoured  above  many  in  their 
generation;  and  on  that  account  we  dare  not  but  do  so  also.  That  all 
church  reformation  is  to  be  measured  by  their  line, — that  is,  that  no 
farther  discovery  of  truth,  in,  or  about,  or  concerning  the  ways  or  works 
of  God,  may  be  made,  but  what  hath  been  made  to  them  and  by  them, — 
was  not,  that  I  know  of,  ever  yet  affirmed  by  any  in  or  of  any  reformed 
church  in  the  world.  The  truth  is,  such  attempts  as  this  of  Mr.  B.'s  to 
overthrow  all  the  foundations  of  Christian  religion,  to  accommodate  the 
Gospel  to  the  Alcoran,  and  subject  all  divine  mysteries  to  the  judgment 
of  that  wisdom  which  is  carnal  and  sensual,  under  the  fair  pretence  of  car- 


rying  on  the  work  of  reformation  and  of  discovering  truth  from  the  Scrip 
ture,  have  perhaps  fixed  some  men  to  the  measure  they  have  received  be 
yond  what  Christian  ingenuity  and  the  love  of  the  truth  requireth  of  them. 
A  noble  and  free  inquiry  into  the  word  of  God,  with  attendance  to  all 
ways  by  him  appointed  or  allowed  for  the  revelation  of  his  mind,  with 
reliance  on  his  gracious  promise  of  "  leading  us  into  all  truth"  by  his  holy 
and  blessed  Spirit,  without  whose  aid,  guidance,  direction,  light,  and  assist 
ance,  we  can  neither  know,  understand,  nor  receive  the  things  that  are  of 
God ;  neither  captivated  to  the  traditions  of  our  fathers,  for  whose  labour 
and  pains  in  the  work  of  the  gospel,  and  for  his  presence  with  them,  we 
daily  bless  the  name  of  our  God;  neither  yet  "carried  about  with  every 
wind  of  doctrine,"  breathed  or  insinuated  by  the  "  cunning  sleight  of  men 
who  lie  in  wait  to  deceive," — is  that  which  we  profess.  What  the  Lord 
will  be  pleased  to  do  with  us  by  or  in  this  frame,  upon  these  principles ; 
how,  wherein,  we  shall  serve  our  generation,  in  the  revelation  of  his  mind 
and  will, — is  in  his  hand  and  disposal.  About  using  or  casting  off  words 
and  phrases,  formerly  used  to  express  any  truth  or  doctrine  of  the  Scrip 
ture,  we  will  not  contend  with  any,  provided  the»things  themselves  signi 
fied  by  them  be  retained.  This  alone  makes  me  indeed  put  any  value  on 
any  word  or  expression  not  gjjrwg  found  in  the  Scripture,  namely,  my 
observation  that  they  are  questioned  and  rejected  by  none  but  such  as,  by 
their  rejection,  intend  and  aim  at  the  removal  of  the  truth  itself  which  by 
them  is  expressed,  and  plentifully  revealed  in  the  word.  The  same  care 
also  Avas  among  them  of  old,  having  the  same  occasion  administered.  Hence 
when  Valens,1  the  Arian  emperor,  sent  Modestus,  his  prsetorian  prsefect, 
to  persuade  Basil  to  be  an  Arian,  the  man  entreated  him  not  to  be  so  rigid 
as  to  displease  the  emperor  and  trouble  the  church,  di  o\iyrjv  doypdruv 
dxglZtiav,  for  an  over-strict  observance  of  opinions,  it  being  but  one  word, 
indeed  one  syllable,  that  made  the  difference,  and  he  thought  it  not  pru 
dent  to  stand  so  much  upon  so  small  a  business.  The  holy  man  replied, 
Tot's  Pilots  Xoyoig  svrfdpafAfAsvot  irgossdai  /&sv  ruv  §s/ojv  doyftdruv  olds  fj.ia.v  ave- 
Xovrai  ffuAXaCjjv — "However  children  might  be  so  dealt  withal,  those  who 
are  bred  up  in  the  Scriptures  or  nourished  with  the  word  will  not  suffer 
one  syllable  of  divine  truth  to  be  betrayed."  The  like  attempt  to  this  of 
Valens  and  Modestus  upon  Basil  was  made  by  the  Arian  bishops  at  the 
council  of  Ariminum,2  who  pleaded  earnestly  for  the  rejection  of  one  or 
two  words  uot  found  in  the  Scripture,  laying  on  that  plea  much  weight, 
when  it  was  the  eversion  of  the  deity  of  Christ  which  they  intended  and 
attempted.  And  by  none  is  there  more  strength  and  evidence  given  to 
this  observation  than  by  him  with  whom  I  have  now  to  do,  who,  exclaim 
ing  against  words  and  expressions,  intends  really  the  subversion  of  all  the 
most  fundamental  and  substantial  truths  of  the  gospel;  and  therefore,  hav 
ing,  pp.  19-21,  reckoned  up  many  expressions  which  he  dislikes,  con 
demns,  and  would  have  rejected,  most  of  them  relating  to  the  chiefest 
heads  of  our  religion  (though,  to  his  advantage,  he  cast  in  by  the  way  two 
or  three  gross  figments),  he  concludes  "  that  as  the  forms  of  speech  by  him 
recounted  are  not  used  in  the  Scripture,  no  more  are  the  things  signified 
by  them  contained  therein."  In  the  issue,  then,  all  the  quarrel  is  fixed 
upon  the  things  themselves,  which,  if  they  were  found  in  Scripture,  the 
expressions  insisted  on  might  be  granted  to  suit  them  well  enough.  What 
need,  then,  all  this  long  discourse  about  words  and  expressions,  when  it  is 

1  Theod.  Hist.  Eccles.  lib.  iv.  cap.  xvii.  p.  126;  Socrat.  lib.  iv.  cap.  xxi.  xxii. ;  Sozom. 
lib.  vi.  cap.  xv.-xvii. 
8  Theod.  Hist.  lib.  ii.  cap.  xviii. ;  Sozom.  lib.  iv.  cap.  xiii. ;  Niceph.  lib.  ix.  cap.  xxxix. 


the  things  themselves  signified  by  them  that  are  the  abominations  decried? 
Now,  though  most  of  the  things  here  pointed  unto  will  fall  under  our  en 
suing  considerations,  yet  because  Mr  B.  hath  here  cast  into  one  heap  many 
of  the  doctrines  which  in  the  Christian  religion  he  opposeth  and  would 
have  renounced,  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  take  a  short  view  of  the  most  con 
siderable  instances  in  our  passage. 

His  first  is  of  God's  being  infinite  and  incomprehensible.  This  he  con 
demns,  name  and  thing, — that  is,  he  says  "  he  is  finite,  limited,  of  us  to 
be  comprehended; "  for  those  who  say  he  is  infinite  and  incomprehensible 
do  say  only  that  he  is  not  finite  nor  of  us  to  be  comprehended.  What 
advance  is  made  towards  the  farther  reformation  of  the  church1  by  this  new 
notion  of  Mr  B.'s  is  fully  discovered  in  the  consideration  of  the  second 
chapter  of  his  Catechism;  and  in  this,  as  in  sundry  other  things,  Mr  B. 
excels  his  masters.2  The  Scripture  tells  us  expressly  that  "he  filleth  heaven 
and  earth;"  that  the  "heaven  and  the  heaven  of  heavens  cannot  contain 
him;"  that  his  presence  is  in  heaven  and  hell,  and  that  "  his  understanding 
is  infinite"  (which  IIOAV  the  understanding  of  one  that  is  finite  may  be,  an 
infinite  understanding  cannot  comprehend);  that  he  "dwelleth  in  that  light 
which  no  man  can  approach  unto,  whom  no  man  hath  seen,  nor  can  see" 
(which  to  us  is  the  description  of  one  incomprehensible);  that  he  is  "  eter 
nal,"  which  we  cannot  comprehend.  The  like  expressions  are  used  of  him  in 
great  abundance.  Besides,  if  God  be  not  incomprehensible,  we  may  search 
out  his  power,  wisdom,  and  understanding  to  the  utmost ;  for  if  we  cannot, 
if  it  be  not  possible  so  to  do,  he  is  incomprehensible.  But  "  canst  thou 
by  searching  find  out  God?  canst  thou  find  out  the  Almighty  to  perfec 
tion?"  "  There  is  no  searching  of  his  understanding."  If  by  our  lines  we 
suppose  we  can  fathom  the  depth  of  the  essence,  omnipotency,  wisdom, 
and  understanding  of  God,  I  doubt  not  but  we  shall  find  ourselves  mis 
taken.  Were  ever  any,  since  the  world  began,  before  quarrelled  withal 
for  asserting  the  essence  and  being  of  God  to  be  incomprehensible?  The 
heathen  who  affirmed  that  the  more  he  inquired,  the  more  he  admired 
and  the  less  he  understood,8  had  a  more  noble  reverence  of  the  eternal 
Being*  which  in  his  mind  he  conceived,  than  Mr  B.  will  allow  us  to  enter 
tain  of  God.  Farther;  if  God  be  not  infinite,  he  is  circumscribed  in  some 
certain  place;  if  he  be,  is  he  there  fixed  to  that  place,  or  doth  he  move 
from  it?  If  he  be  fixed  there,  how  can  he  work  at  a  distance,  especially 
such  things  as  necessarily  require  divine  power  to  their  production  ?  If 
he  move  up  and  down,  and  journey  as  his  occasions  require,  what  a  blessed 
enjoyment  of  himself  in  his  own  glory  hath  he!  But  that  this  blasphe 
mous  figment  of  God's  being  limited  and  confined  to  a  certain  place  is 
really  destructive  to  all  the  divine  perfections  of  the  nature  and  being 
of  God  is  afterward  demonstrated.  And  this  is  the  first  instance  given 
by  Mr  B.  of  the  corruption  of  our  doctrine,  which  he  rejects  name 
and  thing,  namely,  "  that  God  is  infinite  and  incomprehensible."  And 
now,  whether  this  man  be  a  "  mere  Christian"  or  a  mere  Lucian,  let  the 
reader  judge. 

That  God  is  a  simple  act  is  the  next  thing  excepted  against  and  de- 

1  "  Solent  quidam  miriones  aedificari  in  ruinam."— Tertul.  de  Prsesc.  ad  Haeres. 
*"Est  autem  haec  magnitude  (ut  ex  iis  intelligi  potcst,  quaade  potentia  et  potestate. 
Dei,  itemque  de  sapientia  ejus  dicta  sunt),  infinita  et  incomprehensibilis." — Crell.  de  Deo, 
seu  de  Vera  Rel.  praefix.  op.  Volkel.  lib.  i.  cap  xxxvii.  p.  273. 

•  Simonides  apud  Ciceronem,  lib  i.  de  Nat.  Deorum,  lib.  i.  22. 

«  Vide  pnssim  quae  de  Deo  dicuntur,  apud  Araturn,  Orpheum,  Homerum,  Asclepium, 
Platonem,  Plotinum,  Proclum,  Psellum,  Porphyrium,  Jamblichum,  Plinium,  Tullium, 
Senecam,  Plutarclium,  et  quae  ex  iis  omnibus  excerpsit.  Eugub.  de  Prim.  Philos. 


cried,  name  and  thing ;  in  the  room  whereof,  that  he  is  compounded  of 
matter 'and  form,"  or  the  like,  must  be  asserted.  Those  who  affirm  God 
to  be  a  simple  act  do  only  deny  him  to  be  compounded  of  divers  prin 
ciples,  and  assert  him  to  be  always  actually  in  being,  existence,  and  intent 
operation.1  God  says  of  himself  that  his  name  isEhejeh,  and  he  is  I  AM, — 
that  is,  a  simple  being,  existing  in  and  of  itself;  and  this  is  that  which  is 
intended  by  the  simplicity  of  the  nature  of  God,  and  his  being  a  simple 
act.  The  Scripture  tells  us  he  is  eternal,  I  AM,  always  the  same,  and  so 
never  what  he  was  not  ever.  This  is  decried,  and  in  opposition  to  it 
his  being  compounded,  and  so  obnoxious  to  dissolution,  and  his  being 
in  potentia,  in  a  disposition  and  passive  capacity  to  be  what  he  is  not,  is 
asserted ;  for  it  is  only  to  deny  these  things  that  the  term  "  simple"  is 
used,  which  he  condemns  and  rejects.  And  this  is  the  second  instance 
that  Mr  B.  gives  in  the  description  of  his  God,  by  his  rejecting  the  re 
ceived  expressions  concerning  him  who  is  so  :  "  He  is  limited,  and  of  us  to 
be  comprehended;  his  essence  and  being  consisting  of  several  principles, 
whereby  he  is  in  a  capacity  of  being  what  he  is  not."  Mr  B.,  solus  habeto; 
I  will  not  be  your  rival  in  the  favour  of  this  God. 

And  this  may  suffice  to  this  exception  of  Mr  B.,  by  the  way,  against 
the  simplicity  of  the  being  of  God;  yet,  because  he  doth  not  directly  op 
pose  it  afterward,  and  the  asserting  of  it  doth  clearly  evert  all  his  follow 
ing  fond  imaginations  of  the  shape,  corporeity,  and  limitedness  of  the 
essence  of  God  (to  which  end  also  I  shall,  in  the  consideration  of  his 
several  depravations  of  the  truth  concerning  the  nature  of  God,  insist  upon 
it),  I  shall  a  little  here  divert  to  the  explication  of  what  we  intend  by  the 
simplicity  of  the  essence  of  God,  and  confirm  the  truth  of  what  we  so  in 
tend  thereby. 

As  was,  then,  intimated  before,  though  simplicity  seems  to  be  a  positive 
term,  or  to  denote  something  positively,  yet  indeed  it  is  a  pure  negation,9 
and  formally,  immediately,  and  properly,  denies  multiplication,  composi 
tion,  and  the  like.  And  though  this  only  it  immediately  denotes,  yet  there 
is  a  most  eminent  perfection  of  the  nature  of  God  thereby  signified  to  us ; 
which  is  negatively  proposed,  because  it  is  in  the  use  of  things  that  are 
proper  to  us,  in  which  case  we  can  only  conceive  what  is  not  to  be  ascribed 
to  God.  Now,  not  to  insist  on  the  metaphysical  notions  and  distinctions 
of  simplicity,  by  the  ascribing  of  it  to  God  we  do  not  only  deny  that  he 
is  compounded  of  divers  principles  really  distinct,  but  also  of  such  as  are 
improper,  and  not  of  such  a  real  distance,  or  that  he  is  compounded  of 
any  thing,  or  can  be  compounded  with  any  thing  whatever. 

First,  then,  that  this  is  a  property  of  God's  essence  or  being  is  manifest 
from  his  absolute  independence  and  fastness  in  being  and  operation,  which 
God  often  insists  upon  in  the  revelation  of  himself:  Isa.  xliv.  6,  "  I  am 
the  first,  and  I  am  the  last ;  and  beside  me  there  is  no  God."  Eev.  i.  8, 
"  I  am  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  beginning  and  the  ending,  saith  the  Lord, 
•which  is,"  etc.:  so  chap.  xxi.  6,  xxii.13.  Which  also  is  fully  asserted,  Eom. 
xi.  35,  36,  "Who  hath  first  given  to  him,  and  it  shall  be  recompensed  unto 
him  again?  for  of  him,  and  through  him,  and  to  him,  are  all  things :  to  whom 

1  "  Via  rcmotionis  utendum  est,  in  Dei  cpnsideratione :  nam  divina  substantia  sua  im- 
mensitate  cxcedit  cmnem  forniam,  quam  intellectus  roster  intelligit,  unde  ipsum  non 
possumus  exacte  cognoscere  quid  sit,  sed  quid  non  sit." — Thorn.  Con.  Gentes,  lib.  i.  cap. 
xiv.  "  Meiito  dictum  est  a  veteribus,  potius  in  hac  vita  de  Deo  a  nobis  cognosci  quid 
non  sit,  quam  quid  sit ;  ut  enim  cognoscamus  quid  Deus  non  sit,  negatione  nimirum 
aliqua,  quae  prppria  sit  divinse  essentiae,  satis  est  unica  negatio  dependentiaB,"  etc. — 
Socin.  ad  lib.  ii.  cap  i. ;  Metaph.  Arist.  q.  2,  sect.  4. 

*  Suarez.  Metaph.  torn.  ii.  disput.  30,  sect.  3;  Cajetan.  de  Ente  et  Essen,  cap.  ii. 


be  glory  for  ever."  Now,  if  God  were  of  any  causes,  internal  or  external, 
any  principles  antecedent  or  superior  to  him,  he  could  not  be  so  absolutely 
first  and  independent.  Were  he  composed  of  parts,  accidents,  manner  of 
being,  he  could  not  be  first ;  for  all  these  are  before  that  which  is  of  them, 
and  therefore  his  essence  is  absolutely  simple. 

Secondly,  God  is  absolutely  and  perfectly  one  and  the  same,  and  nothing 
differs  from  his  essence  in  it :  "  The  LORD  our  God  is  one  LORD,"  Deut.  vi.  4 ; 
"  Thou  art  the  same,"  Ps.  cii.  27.  And  where  there  is  an  absolute  oneness 
and  sameness  in  the  whole,  there  is  no  composition  by  an  union  of  extremes. 
Thus  is  it  with  God :  his  name  is,  "  I  AM  ;  I  AM  THAT  I  AM,"  Exod.  iii. 
14, 15 ;  "  Which  is,"  Rev.  i.  8.  He,  then,  who  is  what  he  is,  and  whose  all 
that  is  in  him  is,  himself,  hath  neither  parts,  accidents,  principles,  nor  any 
thing  else,  whereof  his  essence  should  be  compounded. 

Thirdly,  The  attributes  of  God,  which  alone  seem  to  be  distinct  things  in 
the  essence  of  God,  are  all  of  them  essentially  the  same  with  one  another,  and 
every  one  the  same  with  the  essence  of  God  itself.  For,  first,  they  are 
spoken  one  of  another  as  well  as  of  God  ;  as  there  is  his  "eternal  power"  as 
well  as  his  "  Godhead."  And,  secondly,  they  are  either  infinite  and  infinitely 
perfect,  or  they  are  not.  If  they  are,  then  if  they  are  not  the  same  with 
God,  there  are  more  things  infinite  than  one,  and  consequently  more  Gods; 
for  that  which  is  absolutely  infinite  is  absolutely  perfect,  and  consequently 
God.  If  they  are  not  infinite,  then  God  knows  not  himself,  for  a  finite 
wisdom  cannot  know  perfectly  an  infinite  being.  And  this  might  be  far 
ther  confirmed  by  the  particular  consideration  of  all  kinds  of  composition, 
with  a  manifestation  of  the  impossibility  of  their  attribution  unto  God ; 
arguments  to  which  purpose  the  learned  reader  knows  where  to  find  in 

Fourthly,  Yea,  that  God  is,  and  must  needs  be,  a  simple  act  (which  ex 
pression  Mr  B.  fixes  on  for  the  rejection  of  it)  is  evident  from  this  one  con 
sideration,  which  was  mentioned  before :  If  he  be  not  so,  there  must  be  some 
potentiality  in  God.  Whatever  is,  and  is  not  a  simple  act,  hath  a  possibility 
to  be  perfected  by  act;  if  this  be  in  God,  he  is  not  perfect,  nor  all-sufficient. 
Every  composition  whatever  is  of  power  and  act ;  which  if  it  be,  or  might 
have  been  in  God,  he  could  not  be  said  to  be  immutable,  which  the  Scrip 
ture  plentifully  witnesseth  that  he  is. 

These  are  some  few  of  the  grounds  of  this  affirmation  of  ours  concerning 
the  simplicity  of  the  essence  of  God  ;  which  when  Mr  B.  removes  and 
answers,  he  may  have  more  of  them,  which  at  present  there  is  no  necessity 
to  produce. 

From  his  being  he  proceeds  to  his  subsistence,  and  expressly  rejects  his 
subsisting  in  three  persons,  name  and  thing.  That  this  is  no  new  attempt, 
no  undertaking  whose  glory  Mr  B.  may  arrogate  to  himself,  is  known. 
Hitherto  God  hath  taken  thought  for  his  own  glory,  and  eminently  con 
founded  the  opposers  of  the  subsistence  of  his  essence  in  three  distinct 
persons.  Inquire  of  them  that  went  before,  and  of  the  dealings  of  God 
with  them  of  old.  What  is  become  of  Ebion,  Cerinthus,  Paulus  Samosatenus, 
Theodotus  Byzantimis,  Photinus,  Arius,  Macedonius,  etc.?  Hath  not  God 
made  their  memory  to  rot,  and  their  names  to  be  an  abomination  to  all 
generations  ?  How  they  once  attempted  to  have  taken  possession  of  the 
churches  of  God,  making  slaughter  and  havoc  of  all  that  opposed  them, 
hath  been  declared;  but  their  place  long  since  knows  them  no  more.  By 
the  subsisting  of  God  in  any  person,  no  more  is  intended  than  that  person's 
being  God.  If  that  person  be  God,  God  subsists  in  that  person.  If  you 
grant  the  Father  to  be  a  person  (as  the  Holy  Ghost  expressly  affirms  liim 


to  be,  Heb.  i.  3)  and  to  be  God,  you  grant  God  to  subsist  in  that  person : 
that  is  all  which  by  that  expression  is  intended.  The  Son  is  God,  or  is 
not.  To  say  he  is  not  God,  is  to  beg  that  which  cannot  be  proved.  If  he 
be  God,  he  is  the  Father,  or  he  is  another  person.  If  he  be  the  Father, 
he  is  not  the  Son.  That  he  is  the  Son  and  not  the  Son  is  sufficiently 
contradictory.  If  he  be  not  the  Father,  as  was  said,  and  yet  be  God,  he 
may  have  the  same  nature  and  substance  with  the  Father  (for  of  our  God 
there  is  but  one  essence,  nature,  or  being),  and  yet  be  distinct  from  him. 
That  distinction  from  him  is  his  personality, — that  property  whereby  and 
from  whence  he  is  the  Son.  The  like  is  to  be  said  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
The  thing,  then,  here  denied  is,  that  the  Son  is  God,  or  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
is  God :  for  if  they  are  so,  God  must  subsist  in  three  persons ;  of  which 
more  afterward.  Now,  is  this  not  to  be  found  in  the  Scriptures  ?  Is  there 
no  text  affirming  Christ  to  be  God,  to  be  one  with  the  Father,  or  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  so  ?  no  text  saying,  "  There  are  three  that  bear  record  in 
heaven ;  and  these  three  are  one?"  none  ascribing  divine  perfections,  divine 
worship  distinctly  to  either  Son  or  Spirit,  and  yet  jointly  to  one  God  ? 
Are  none  of  these  things  found  in  the  Scripture,  that  Mr  B.  thinks  with  one 
bhist  to  demolish  all  these  ancient  foundations,  and  by  his  bare  authority 
to  deny  the  common  faith  of  the  present  saints,  and  that  wherein  their  pre 
decessors  in  the  worship  of  God  are  fallen  asleep  in  peace?  The  proper 
place  for  the  consideration  of  these  things  will  farther  manifest  the  abomi 
nation  of  this  bold  attempt  against  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Eternal  Spirit. 

For  the  divine  tircumincession,  mentioned  in  the  next  place,  I  shall  only 
say  that  it  is  not  at  all  in  my  intention  to  defend  all  the  expressions  that 
any  men  have  used  (who  are  yet  sound  in  the  main)  in  the  unfolding  of 
this  great,  tremendous  mystery  of  the  blessed  Trinity,  and  I  could  heartily 
wish  that  they  had  some  of  them  been  less  curious  in  their  inquiries  and 
less  bold  in  their  expressions.  It  is  the  thing  itself  alone  whose  faith  I 
desire  to  own  and  profess ;  and  therefore  I  shall  not  in  the  least  labour  to 
retain  and  hold  those  things  or  words  which  may  be  left  or  lost  without 
any  prejudice  thereunto. 

Briefly  ;  by  the  barbarous  term  of  "  mutual  circumincession,"  the  school 
men  understand  that  which  the  Greek  fathers  called  I^Tsg/^woTjovg,  whereby 
they  expressed  that  mystery,  which  Christ  himself  teaches  us,  of  "  his 
being  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  him,"  John  x.  38,  and  of  the 
Father's  dwelling  in  him,  and  doing  the  works  he  did,  chap.  xiv.  10, — 
the  distinction  of  these  persons  being  not  hereby  taken  away,  but  the  dis 
junction  of  them  as  to  their  nature  and  being. 

The  eternal  generation  of  the  Son  is  in  the  next  place  rejected,  that  he 
may  be  sure  to  cast  down  every  thing  that  looks  towards  the  assertion  of 
his  deity,  whom  yet  the  apostle  affirms  to  be  "  God  blessed  for  ever,"  Rom. 
ix.  5.  That  the  Word,  which  "  in  the  beginning  was"  (and  therefore  is) 
*.'  God,"  is  "  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father,"  the  apostle  affirms,  John  i. 
14.  That  he  is  also  "  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God"  we  have  other  plenti 
ful  testimonies,  Ps.  ii.  7 ;  John  iii.  16  ;  Acts  xiii.  33 ;  Heb.  i.  4-6 ; — a  Son 
so  as,  in  comparison  of  his  sonship,  the  best  of  sons  by  adoption  are  ser 
vants,  Heb.  iii.  5,  6  ;  and  so  begotten  as  to  be  an  only  Son,  John  i.  14 ; 
though,  begotten  by  grace,  God  hath  many  sons,  James  i.  18.  Christ,  then, 
being  begotten  of  the  Father,  hath  his  generation  of  the  Father  ;  for  these 
are  the  very  same  things  in  words  of  a  diverse  sound.  The  only  question 
here  is,  whether  the  Son  have  the  generation  so  often  spoken  of  from 
eternity  or  in  time, — whether  it  be  an  eternal  or  a  temporal  generation 
from  whence  he  is  so  said  to  be  "  begotten."  As  Christ  is  a  Son,  so  by  hinx 


the  "  worlds  were  made,"  Heb.  i.  2,  so  that  surely  he  had  his  sonship  be 
fore  he  took  flesh  in  the  fulness  of  time;  and  when  he  had  his  sonship  he 
had  his  generation.  He  is  such  a  Son  as,  by  being  partaker  of  that  name, 
he  is  exalted  above  angels,  Heb.  i.  5  ;  and  he  is  the  "  first  begotten " 
before  he  is  brought  into  the  world,  verse  6  :  and  therefore  his  "  goings 
forth  "  are  said  to  be  "  from  the  days  of  eternity,"  Micah  v.  2  ;  and  he  had 
"  glory  with  the  Father"  (as  the  Son)  "  before  the  world  was,"  John  xvii.  5. 
Neither  is  he  said  to  be  "  begotten  of  the  Father"  in  respect  of  his  incarna 
tion,  but  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  formed  in  the  womb  by  him,  of 
the  substance  of  his  mother ;  nor  is  he  thence  called  the  "  Son  of  God." 
In  brief,  if  Christ  be  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  Mr  B.  will  not  deny  him 
to  have  had  an  eternal  generation :  if  he  be  not,  a  generation  must  be 
found  out  for  him  suitable  to  the  sonship  which  he  hath ;  of  which  abo 
mination  in  its  proper  place. 

This  progress  have  we  made  in  Mr.  B.'s  creed:  He  believes  God  to  be 
finite,  to  be  by  us  comprehended,  compounded;  he  believes  there  is  no 
trinity  of  persons  in  the  Godhead, — that  Christ  is  not  the  eternal  Son  of 
God.  The  following  parts  of  it  are  of  the  same  kind : — 

The  eternal  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  nextly  rejected.  The  Holy  Ghost 
being  constantly  termed  the  "  Spirit  of  God,"  the  "  Spirit  of  the  Father," 
and  the  "  Spirit  of  the  Son"  (being  also  "  God,"  as  shall  afterward  be  evinc 
ed),  and  so  partaking  of  the  same  nature  with  Father  and  Son  (the  apostle 
granting  that  God  hath  a  nature,  in  his  rejecting  of  them  who  "  by  nature 
are  no  gods  "),  is  yet  distinguished  from  them,  and  that  eternally  (as  no 
thing  is  in  the  Deity  that  is  not  eternal),  and  being,  moreover,  said  JJCTO- 
gi-jzffQa.1,  or  to  "  proceed"  and  "  go  forth  "  from  the  Father  and  Son,  this 
expression  of  his  "  eternal  procession  "  hath  been  fixed  on,  manifesting  the 
property  whereby  he  is  distinguished  from  Father  and  Son.  The  thing  in 
tended  hereby  is,  that  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  is  God,  and  is  said  to  be  of  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  is  by  that  name,  of  his  being  of  them,  distinguished 
from  them  ;  and  the  denial  hereof  gives  you  one  article  more  of  Mr  B.'s 
creed,  namely,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  not  God.  To  what  that  expression 
of  "  proceeding  "  is  to  be  accommodated  will  afterward  be  considered. 

The  incarnation  of  Christ  (the  Deity  and  Trinity  being  despatched)  is 
called  into  question,  and  rejected.  By  "  incarnation"  is  meant,  as  the  word 
imports,  a  taking  of  flesh  (this  is  variously  by  the  ancients  expressed,  but 
the  same  thing  still  intended1),  or  being  made  so.  The  Scripture  affirming 
that  "  the  Word  was  made  flesh,"  John  i.  14  ;  that  "  God  was  manifest  in 
the  flesh,"  1  Tim.  iii.  16;  that  "  Christ  took  part  of  flesh  and  blood,"  Heb. 
ii.  14  ;  that  "  he  took  on  him  the  seed  of  Abraham,"  chap.  ii.  16  ;  that  he 
was  "  made  of  a  woman,"  Gal.  iv.  4,  5 ;  sent  forth  "  in  the  likeness  of  sin 
ful  flesh,"  Rom.  viii.  3 ;  "in  all  things  made  like  unto  his  brethren,"  Heb. 
ii.  17, — we  thought  we  might  have  been  allowed  to  say  so  also,  and  that  this 
expression  might  have  escaped  with  a  less  censure  than  an  utter  rejection 
out  of  Christian  religion.  The  Son  of  God  taking  flesh,  and  so  being 
made  like  to  us,  that  he  might  be  the  "  captain  of  our  salvation,"  is  that 
which  by  this  word  (and  that  according  to  the  Scripture)  is  affirmed,  and 
which,  to  increase  the  heap  of  former  abominations  (or  to  "  carry  on  the 
work  of  reformation  beyond  the  stint  of  Luther  or  Calvin"),  is  here  by  Mr 
B.  decried. 

Of  the  hypostatical  union  there  is  the  same  reason.      Christ,  who  as 

Ettracpxaffif    VifttftJarttflf   Itavfyuvrviri;-   ft  ^nrfenxti  IftStifiia-   fi  •JTafovff'ia,'   J)  oixovo/uiz" 
ft  dine   «  S/    uy^pafirnns  <pa,»ipu<rif   (i  'i/.ivsi;-   f>  xivuffif   r\  rev    Xpifrou  ««- 


**  concerning  the  flesh"  was  of  the  Jews,  and  is  God  to  be  blessed  for 
ever,  over  all,  Rom.  ix.  5,  is  one  person.  Being  God  to  be  blessed  over  all, 
that  is,  God  by  nature  (for  such  as  are  not  so,  and  yet  take  upon  them  to 
be  gods,  God  will  destroy),  and  having  "  flesh  and  blood  as  the  children  " 
have,  Heb.  ii.  14,  that  is,  the  same  nature  of  man  with  believers,  yet 
being  but  one  person,  one  mediator,  one  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  we  say 
both  these  natures  of  God  and  man  are  united  in  that  one  person,  namely, 
the  person  of  the  Son  of  God.  This  is  that  which  Mr  B.  rejects  (now  his 
hand  is  in),  both  name  and  thing.  The  truth  is,  all  these  things  are  but 
colourable  advantages  wherewith  he  laboureth  to  amuse  poor  souls.  Grant 
the  deity  of  Christ,  and  he  knows  all  these  particulars  will  necessarily 
ensue ;  and  whilst  he  denies  the  foundation,  it  is  to  no  purpose  to  contend 
about  any  consequences  or  inferences  whatever.  And  whether  we  have 
ground  for  the  expression  under  present  consideration,  John  i.  14,  18,  xx. 
28 ;  Acts  xx.  28 ;  Rom.  i.  3,  4,  ix.  5  ;  Gal.  iv.  4 ;  Phil.  ii.  5-8 ;  1  Tim. 
iii.  16  ;  1  John  i.  1,  2  ;  Rev.  v.  12-14,  with  innumerable  other  testimonies 
of  Scripture,  may  be  considered.  If  "  the  Word,  the  Son  of  God,  was 
made  flesh,  made  of  a  woman,  took  our  nature,"  wherein  he  was  pierced 
and  wounded,  and  shed  his  blood,  and  yet  continues  "  our  Lord  and  our 
God,  God  blessed  for  ever,"  esteeming  it  "  no  robbery  to  be  equal  with 
his  Father,"  yet  being  a  person  distinct  from  him,  being  the  "  brightness 
of  his  person,"  we  fear  not  to  say  that  the  two  natures  of  God  and  man 
are  united  in  one  person ;  which  is  the  hypostatical  union  here  rejected. 

The  communication  of  properties,  on  which  depend  two  or  three  of  the 
following  instances  mentioned  by  Mr  B.,  is  a  necessary  consequent  of  the 
union  before  asserted ;  and  the  thing  intended  by  it  is  no  less  clearly  de 
livered  in  Scripture  than  the  truths  before  mentioned.1  It  is  affirmed  of 
"  the  man  Christ  Jesus"  that  he  "  knew  what  was  in  the  heart  of  man,"  that 
he  "  would  be  with  his  unto  the  end  of  the  world,"  and  Thomas,  putting 
his  hand  into  his  side,  cried  out  to  him,  "  My  Lord  and  my  God,"  etc., 
when  Christ  neither  did  nor  was  so,  as  he  was  man.2  Again,  it  is  said 
that  "  God  redeemed  his  church  with  his  own  blood,"  that  the  "  Son  of  God 
was  made  of  a  woman,"  that  "  the  Word  was  made  flesh,"  none  of  which 
can  properly  be  spoken  of  God,  his  Son,  or  eternal  Word,8  in  respect  of 
that  nature  whereby  he  is  so ;  and  therefore  we  say,  that  look  what  pro 
perties  are  peculiar  to  either  of  his  natures  (as,  to  be  omniscient,  omnipo 
tent,  to  be  the  object  of  divine  worship,  to  the  Deity  ;*  to  be  born,  to  bleed, 
and  die,  to  the  humanity),  are  spoken  of  in  reference  to  his  person,  wherein 
both  those  natures  are  united.  So  that  whereas  the  Scriptures  say  that 
"  God  redeemed  his  church  with  his  own  blood,"  or  that  he  was  "  made 
flesh ;"  or  whereas,  in  a  consonancy  thereunto,  and  to  obviate  the  folly  of 
Nestorius,  who  made  two  persons  of  Christ,  the  ancients  called  the  blessed 
Virgin  the  Mother  of  God, — the  intendment  of  the  one  and  other  is  no 
more  but  that  he  was  truly  God,  who  in  his  manhood  was  a  son,  had  a 
mother,  did  bleed  and  die.  And  such  Scripture  expressions  we  affirm  to 
be  founded  in  this  "  communication  of  properties,"  or  the  assignment  of 

i  "  Non  ut  Deus  esset  habitator,  natura  humana  esset  habitaculum  :  sed  ut  naturae 
alter!  sic  misceretur  altera,  ut  quamvis  alia  sit  quae  suscipitur,  alia  vero  quse  suscipit, 
in  tantam  tamen  unitatem  conveniret  utriusque  diversitas,  ut  unus  idemque  sit  Filius, 
qui  se,  et  secundum  quod  unus  homo  est,  Patre  dicit  minorem,  et  secundum  quod  unus 
I)eus  est,  Patri  se  profitetur  aequalem." — Leo  Serm.  iii.  de  Nat. 

8   Ttli;  /j.\v  TUfiivovs  Xoyoi/s   ru  IK    Manias  avfy&wy,  THUS  ol  awy/Ati/ov;,  xai  Qieffivtii  TM 

i»  ipxy  '**'  **'<>yy- — Thcod.  Dial.  'A<rvy%. 

*  taJuTo,  -jeavra,  trvftSo^a  rapxos  rns  «"•«  yws  tlz.H/tft'ivv;- — Iren.  lib.  iii.  ad.  Hseres. 

*  "  Salva  proprietate  utriusque  naturae,  suscepta  est  a  majestate  humilitas,  a  Yirtute 
infirmitas,  ab  aeternitate  modalitas." — Leo.  Ep.  ad  Flavi. 


that  unto  the  person  of  Christ,  however  expressly  spoken  of  as  God  or 
man,  which  is  proper  to  him  in  regard  of  either  of  these  natures,  the  one 
or  other,  God  on  this  account  being  said  to  do  what  is  proper  to  man, 
and  man  what  is  proper  alone  to  God,  because  he  who  is  both  God  and 
man  doth  both  the  one  and  the  other.1  By  what  expressions  and  with 
what  diligence  the  ancients  warded  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  personal  union 
against  both  Nestorius  and  Eutyches,2  the  one  of  them  dividing  his  per 
son  into  two,  the  other  confounding  his  natures  by  an  absurd  confusion 
and  mixture  of  their  respective  essential  properties  (Mr  B.  not  giving 
occasion),  I  shall  not  farther  mention. 

And  this  is  all  Mr  B.  instances  in  of  what  he  rejects  as  to  our  doctrine 
about  the  nature  of  God,  the  Trinity,  person  of  Christ,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  ;  of  all  which  he  hath  left  us  no  more  than  what  the  Turks  and  other 
Mohammedans  will  freely  acknowledge.3  And  whether  this  be  to  be  a 
"  mere  Christian,"  or  none  at  all,  the  pious  reader  will  judge. 

Having  dealt  thus  with  the  person  of  Christ,  he  adds  the  names  of  two 
abominable  figments,  to  give  countenance  to  his  undertaking,  wherein  he 
knows  those  with  whom  he  hath  to  do  have  no  communion,  casting  the  deity 
of  Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost  into  the  same  bundle  with  transubstantiation 
and  consubstantiation  ;  to  which  he  adds  the  ubiquity  of  the  body  of  Christ, 
after  mentioned,  —  self-contradicting  fictions.  With  what  sincerity,  can 
dour,  and  Christian  ingenuity,  Mr  B.  hath  proceeded,  in  rolling  up  to 
gether  such  abominations  as  these  with  the  most  weighty  and  glorious 
truths  of  the  gospel,  that  together  he  might  trample  them  under  his  feet  in 
the  mire,  God  will  certainly  in  due  time  reveal  to  himself  and  all  the  world. 

The  next  thing  he  decries  is  original  sin  (I  will  suppose  Mr  B.  knows 
what  those  whom  he  professeth  to  oppose  intend  thereby)  ;  and  this  he 
condemns,  name  and  thing.  That  the  guilt  of  our  first  father's  sin  is  im 
puted  to  his  posterity;  that  they  are  made  obnoxious  to  death  thereby, 
that  we  are  "by  nature  children  of  wrath,  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins, 
conceived  in  sin;  that  our  understandings  are  darkness,  so  that  we  cannot 
receive  the  things  that  are  of  God  ;  that  we  are  able  to  do  no  good  of  our 
selves,  so  that  unless  we  are  born  again  we  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom 
of  God;  that  we  are  alienated,  enemies,  have  carnal  minds,  that  are  enmity 
against  God,  and  cannot  be  subject  to  him;"*  —  all  this  and  the  like  is  at 
once  blown  away  by  Mr  B.;  there  is  no  such  thing.  "Una  litura  potest." 
That  Christ  by  nature  is  not  God,  that  we  by  nature  have  no  sin,  are  the 
two  great  principles  of  this  "  mere  Christian's"  belief. 

Of  Christ's  taking  our  nature  upon  him,  which  is  again  mentioned,  we 
have  spoken  before.  If  he  was  "made  flesh,  made  of  a  woman,  made  under 
the  law  ;  if  he  partook  of  flesh  and  blood  because  the  children  partake  of 
the  same  ;  if  he  took  on  him  the  seed  of  Abraham,  and  was  made  like  to 
us  in  all  things,  sin  only  excepted;  if,  being  in  the  form  of  God  and  equal 
to  him,  he  took  on  him  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  became  like  to  us,"  —  he 
took  our  nature  on  him;5  for  these,  and  these  only,  are  the  things  which 
by  that  expression  are  intended. 

Owros  iffrlv  o  rpivcs  aiii^ufftus,  \xa.rifa.;  Qvffitts  a.vri%ibovffrit  rti  IxaTifa  TO.  fJ/a,  $/* 
«r»»  T»;  vrnarairttai  TavrertiTtf,  xeci  <riit  tig  aXXflXa  aurut  •rifi^uftiffii.  —  Damas.  de  Orthod. 
Fide,  lib.  iii.  cap.  iv. 

'AXntHHi,  -riXiwj,  aSiKifirus,  eifvy^uras.  —  Vide  Evagrium,  lib.  i.  cap.  ii.  iii.  ;  Socrat. 
Hist.  lib.  vii.  cap.  xxix.  xxxii.  xxxiii.  ;  Niceph.  lib.  xiv.  cap.  xlvii.  s  Vid.  lob.. 

Hen.  Hotting.  Hist.  Oriental.,  lib.  i.  cap.  iii.  ex  Alko,  sura.  30.  *  Rom.  v.  12,  15,  16, 
19  ;  Eph.  ii.  1-3  ;  Ps.  Ii  5  ;  John  i.  5  ;  Eph.  iv.  18  ;  1  Cor.  ii.  14  ;  John  iii.  5,  «  ;  Eph, 
ii.  12;  CoL  i.  21  ;  Rom.  viii.  6-&  «  Jolin  L  14;  Gal.  iv.  4,  5;  Heb.  ii.  14,  16,  17;  PiiiL 


ii.  6-8. 


The  most  of  what  follows  is  about  the  grace  of  Christ,  which,  having 
destroyed  what  in  him  lies  his  person,  he  doth  also  openly  reject ;  and 
in  the  first  place  begins  with  the  foundation,  his  making  satisfaction  to 
God  for  our  sins,  all  our  sins,  past,  present,  and  to  come,  which  also,  under 
sundry  other  expressions,  he  doth  afterward  condemn.  God  is  a  God 
of  "  purer  eyes  than  to  behold  evil,"  and  it  is  "  his  judgment  that  they 
which  commit  sin  are  worthy  of  death  ; "  yea,  "  it  is  a  righteous  thing  with 
him  to  render  tribulation"  to  offenders;1  and  seeing  we  have  "all  sinned  and 
come  short  of  the  glory  of  God,"  doubtless  it  will  be  a  righteous  thing  with 
him  to  leave  them  to  answer  for  their  own  sins  who  so  proudly  and  con 
temptuously  reject  the  satisfaction  which  he  himself  hath  appointed  and  the 
ransom  he  hath  found  out.2  But  Mr  B.  is  not  the  first  who  hath  "  erred, 
not  knowing  the  Scriptures  "  nor  the  justice  of  God.  The  Holy  Ghost 
acquainting  us  that  "  the  LORD  made  to  meet  upon  him  the  iniquity  of 
us  all ;  that  he  was  wounded  for  our  transgressions,  bruised  for  our  iniqui 
ties,  and  that  the  chastisement  of  our  peace  was  upon  him,  and  with  his 
stripes  we  are  healed ;  that  he  gave  his  life  a  ransom  for  us,  and  was  made 
sin  for  us,  that  we  might  become  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him ;  that 
he  was  for  us  made  under  the  law  and  underwent  the  curse  of  it;  that 
he  bare  our  sins  in  his  body  on  the  tree ;  and  that  by  his  blood  we  are 
redeemed,  washed,  and  saved,"3 — we  doubt  not  to  speak  as  we  believe, 
namely,  that  Christ  underwent  the  punishment  due  to  our  sins,  and  made 
satisfaction  to  the  justice  of  God  for  them ;  and  Mr  B.,  who  it  seems  is 
otherwise  persuaded,  we  leave  to  stand  or  fall  to  his  own  account. 

Most  of  the  following  instances  of  the  doctrines  he  rejects  belong  to 
and  may  be  reduced  to  the  head  last  mentioned,  and  therefore  I  shall  but 
touch  upon  them.  Seeing  that  "he  that  will  enter  into  life  must  keep 
the  commandments,  and  this  of  ourselves  we  cannot  do,  for  in  many 
things  we  offend  all,  and  he  that  breaks  one  commandment  is  guilty 
of  the  breach  of  the  whole  law,*  God  having  sent  forth  his  Son,  made  of 
a  woman,  made  under  the  law,  to  redeem  them  that  were  under  the  law, 
that  we  might  receive  the  adoption  of  children ;  and  that  which  was 
impossible  to  us  by  the  law,  through  the  weakness  of  the  flesh,  God 
sending  his  own  Son  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,  and  for  sin,  condemned 
sin  in  the  flesh,  that  the  righteousness  of  the  law  might  be  fulfilled  in 
us;  and  so  we  are  saved  by  his  life,  being  justified  by  his  blood,  he  being 
made  unto  us  of  God  righteousness,  and  we  are  by  faith  found  in  him,  hav- 
'ing  on  not  our  own  righteousness,  which  is  by  the  law,  but  that  which 
is  by  Jesus  Christ,  the  righteousness  of  God  by  faith;"5 — we  do  affirm 
that  Christ  fulfilled  the  law  for  us,  not  only  undergoing  the  penalty  of 
it,  but  for  us  submitting  to  the  obedience  of  it,  and  performing  all  that 
righteousness  which  of  us  it  requires,  that  we  might  have  a  complete 
righteousness  wherewith  to  appear  before  God.  And  this  is  that  which 
is  intended  by  the  active  and  passive  righteousness  of  Christ,  after  men 
tioned  ;  all  which  is  rejected,  name  and  thing. 

Of  Christ's  being  punished  by  God,  which  he  rejects  in  the  next  place, 
and,  to  multiply  his  instances  of  our  false  doctrines,  insists  on  it  again  un 
der  the  terms  of  Christ's  enduring  the  wrath  of  God  and  the  pains  of  a 
damned  man,  the  same  account  is  to  be  given  as  before  of  his  satisfac 
tion.  That  God  "bruised  him,  put  him  to  grief,  laid  the  chastisement  of 

1  Hab.  i.  13 ;  Rom.  i.  32 ;  2  Thess.  i.  6.  «  Job  xxxiii.  24.  « Isa.  liii.  5,  6, 10,  11 ; 
IPet.  ii.  24;  Matt.  xx.  28;  1  Tim.  ii.  6;  2  Cor.  v.  21  ;  Gal.  iii.  13;  1  Pet.  i.  18,  ii.  24; 
Eph.  i.  7 ;  Rev.  i.  5,  6,  etc.  4  Matt  xix.  17;  1  John  i.  8;  James  ii.  10.  «  Gal.  iv. 

4,  5 ;  Horn.  viii.  3,  4,  T.  9,  x.  4;  1  Cor.  i.  30;  Phil.  iii.  8-10. 


our  peace  on  him;1  that  for  us  he  underwent  death,  the  curse  of  the  law, 
which  inwrapped  the  whole  punishment  due  to  sin,  and  that  by  the  will 
of  God,  who  so  made  him  to  be  sin  who  knew  no  sin,  and  in  the  under 
going  whereof  he  prayed  and  cried,  and  sweat  blood,  and  was  full  of  heavi 
ness  and  perplexity,"2 — the  Scripture  is  abundantly  evident;  and  what 
we  assert  amounts  not  one  tittle  beyond  what  is  by  and  in  it  affirmed. 

The  false  doctrine  of  the  merit  of  Christ,  and  his  purchasing  for  us  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  is  the  next  stone  which  this  master-builder  disallows 
and  rejects.  That  "  Christ  hath  bought  us  with  a  price;  that  he  hath  re 
deemed  us  from  our  sins,  the  world,  and  curse,  to  be  a  peculiar  people, 
zealous  of  good  works,  so  making  us  kings  and  priests  to  God  for  ever; 
that  he  hath  obtained  for  us  eternal  redemption,  procuring  the  Spirit  for 
us,  to  make  us  meet  for  the  inheritance  of  the  saints  in  light,  God  bless 
ing  us  with  all  spiritual  blessings  in  heavenly  places  in  him,  upon  the 
account  of  his  making  his  soul  an  offering  for  sin,"  performing  that  obedi 
ence  to  the  law  which  of  us  is  required,8 — is  that  which  by  this  expression 
of  the  "merit  of  Christ"  we  intend,  the  fruit  of  it  being  all  the  accom 
plishment  of  the  promise  made  to  him  by  the  Father,  upon  his  undertaking 
the  great  work  of  saving  his  people  from  their  sins.  In  the  bundle  of  doc 
trines  by  Mr  B.  at  once  condemned,  this  also  hath  its  place. 

That  Christ  rose  from  tfie  dead  by  his  own  power  seems  to  us  to  be  true, 
not  only  because  he  affirmed  that  he  "  had  power  so  to  do,  even  to  lay 
down  his  life  and  to  take  it  again,"  John  x.  18,  but  also  because  he  said 
he  would  do  so  when  he  bade  them  "  destroy  the  temple,"  and  told  them 
that  "  in  three  days  he  would  raise  it  again."  It  is  true  that  this  work 
of  raising  Christ  from  the  dead  is  also  ascribed  to  the  Father  and  to  the 
Spirit  (as  in  the  work  of  his  oblation,  his  Father  "  made  his  soul  an  offer 
ing  for  sin,"  and  he  "  offered  up  himself  through  the  eternal  Spirit"),  yet 
this  hinders  not  but  that  he  was  raised  by  his  own  power,  his  Father  and 
he  being  one,  and  what  work  his  Father  doth  he  doing  the  same. 

And  this  is  the  account  which  this  "  mere  Christian  "  giveth  us  concern 
ing  his  faith  in  Christ,  his  person,  and  his  grace :  He  is  a  mere  man,  that 
neither  satisfied  for  our  sins  nor  procured  grace  or  heaven  for  us ;  and  how 
much  this  tends  to  the  honour  of  Christ  and  the  good  of  souls,  all  that 
love  him  in  sincerity  will  judge  and  determine. 

His  next  attempt  is  upon  the  way  whereby  the  Scripture  affirms  that 
we  come  to  be  made  partakers  of  the  good  things  which  Christ  hath  done 
and  wrought  for  us ;  and  in  the  first  place  he  falls  foul  upon  that  of  ap 
prehending  and  applying  Christ's  righteousness  to  ourselves  by  faith,  that  so 
there  may  no  weighty  point  of  the  doctrine  of  the  cross  remain  not  con 
demned  (by  this  wise  man)  of  folly.  This,  then,  goes  also,  name  and  thing  : 
Christ  is  "of  God  made  unto  us  righteousness"  (that  is,  "to  them  that 
believe  on  him,"  or  "  receive"  or  "  apprehend"  him,  John  i.  12),  God  "  hav 
ing  set  him  forth  to  be  a  propitiation  through  faith  in  his  blood,  to  declare 
his  righteousness  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins,"  and  declaring  that  every  one 
who  "  believeth  in  him  is  justified  from  all  things  from  which  he  could  not 
be  justified  by  the  law,"  God  imputing  righteousness  to  them  that  so  be 
lieve  ;  those  who  are  so  justified  by  faith  having  peace  with  God.  It  being 
the  great  thing  we  have  to  aim  at,  namely,  that  "  we  may  know  Jesus 
Christ,  and  the  fellowship  of  his  sufferings,  and  the  power  of  his  resurrection, 
and  be  found  in  him,  not  having  our  own  righteousness,  which  is  of  the 

1  Isa.  liii.  5,  6,  etc.  »  Heb.  ii.  9,  14,  x.  10;   2  Cor.  v.  21;  Luke  xxii.  41-44. 

»  1  Cor.  vi.  20;  1  Pet.  i.  18;  Gal.  i..4,  iii.  13;  Titus  ii.  14;  Eph.  v.  26,27;  Rev.  i.  5,  6; 
Heb.  it  12-14;  Eph.  i.  3;  Phil.  i.  29. 


law,  but  the  righteousness  which  is  by  the  faith  of  Christ,  Christ  being  the 
end  of  the  law  to  every  one  that  believeth,"1 — we  say  it  is  the  duty  of 
every  one  who  is  called,  to  apprehend  Christ  by  faith,  and  apply  his  righte 
ousness  to  him;  that  is,  to  believe  on  him  as  "  made  the  righteousness  of 
God  to  him,"  unto  justification  and  peace.  And  if  Mr  B.  reject  this  doc 
trine,  name  and  thing,  I  pray  God  give  him  repentance  before  it  be  too 
late,  to  the  acknowledgment  of  the  truth. 

Of  Christ's  being  our  surely,  of  Christ's  paying  our  debt,  of  our  sins  im 
puted  to  Christ,  of  Christ's  righteousness  imputed  to  us,  of  Christ's  dying  to 
appease  the  wrath  of  God  and  reconcile  him  to  us,  enough  hath  been  spoken 
already  to  clear  the  meaning  of  them  who  use  these  expressions,  and  to 
manifest  the  truth  of  that  which  they  intend  by  them,  so  that  I  shall  not 
need  again  to  consider  them  as  they  lie  in  this  disorderly,  confused  heap 
which  we  have  here  gathered  together. 

Our  justification  by  Christ  being  cashiered,  he  falls  upon  our  sanctijica- 
tion  in  the  next  place,  that  he  may  leave  us  as  little  of  Christians  as  he 
hath  done  our  Saviour  of  the  true  Messiah.  Infused  grace  is  first  assault 
ed.  The  various  acceptations  of  the  word  "  grace"  in  the  Scripture  this 
is  no  place  to  insist  upon.  By  "  grace  infused"  we  mean  grace  really  be 
stowed  upon  us,  and  abiding  in  us,  from  the  Spirit  of  God.  That  a  new 
spiritual  life  or  principle,  enabling  men  to  live  to  God, — that  new,  gracious, 
heavenly  qualities  and  endowments,  as  light,  love,  joy,  faith,  etc.,  bestowed 
on  men, — are  called  "  grace"  and  "  graces  of  the  Spirit,"2 1  suppose  will  not 
be  denied.  These  we  call  "  infused  grace"  and  "  graces;"  that  is,  we  say 
God  works  these  things  in  us  by  his  Spirit,  giving  us  a  "  new  heart  and 
a  new  spirit,  putting  his  law  into  our  hearts,  quickening  us  who  were  dead 
in  trespasses  and  sins,  making  us  light  who  were  darkness,  filling  us  with 
the  fruits  of  the  Spirit  in  joy,  meekness,  faith,  which  are  not  of  ourselves 
but  the  gifts  of  God."  s  Mr  B.  having  before  disclaimed  all  original  sin, 
or  the  depravation  of  our  nature  by  sin,  in  deadness,  darkness,  obstinacy, 
etc.,  thought  it  also  incumbent  on  him  to  disown  and  disallow  all  repara 
tion  of  it  by  grace;  and  all  this  under  the  name  of  a  "  mere  Christian," 
not  knowing  that  he  discovereth  a  frame  of  spirit  utterly  unacquainted 
with  the  main  things  of  Christianity. 

Free  grace  is  next  doomed  to  rejection.  That  all  the  grace,  mercy, 
goodness  of  God,  in  our  election,  redemption,  calling,  sanctification,  par 
don,  and  salvation,  is  free,  not  deserved,  not  merited,  nor  by  us  any  way 
procured, — that  God  doth  all  that  he  doth  for  us  bountifully,  fully,  freely, 
of  his  own  love  and  grace, — is  affirmed  in  this  expression,  and  intended 
thereby.  And  is  this  found  neither  name  nor  thing  in  the  Scriptures  ? 
Is  there  no  mention  of  "  God's  loving  us  freely;  of  his  blotting  out  our 
sins  for  his  own  sake,  for  his  name's  sake;  of  his  giving  his  Son  for  us 
from  his  own  love;  of  faith  being  not  of  ourselves,  being  the  gift  of  God  ; 
of  his  saving  us,  not  according  to  the  works  of  righteousness  which  we 
have  done,  but  of  his  own  mercy;  of  his  justifying  us  by  his  grace,  be 
getting  us  of  his  own  will,  having  mercy  on  whom  he  will  have  mercy ; 
of  a  covenant  not  like  the  old,  wherein  he  hath  promised  to  be  merciful 
to  our  unrighteousness,"  etc.?*  or  is  it  possible  that  a  man  assuming  to 
himself  the  name  of  a  Christian  should  be  ignorant  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
free  grace  of  God,  or  oppose  it  and  yet  profess  not  to  reject  the  gospel  as  a 

1  Rom.  iii,  25 ;  Acts  xiii.  38,  39  ;  Rom.  iv.  5,  8,  v.  1 ;  Phil.  iii.  9,  10  ;  Rom.  x.  3,  4. 
1  Eph.  ii.  1,  2 ;  Gal.  v.  23-25.  3  Phil.  i.  6,  ii.  13 ;  Jer.  xxxi.  33,  xxxii.  39;  Ezek. 

xi.  19.  xxxvi.  26,  27 ;  Heb.  viii.  10.  *  Eph.  i.  4  ;  John  iii.  16 ;  1  John  iv.  8,  10 ;  Rom. 
T.  8 ;  Eph.  ii.  8 ;  Tit.  iii.  3-7;  James  i.  18 ;  Rom.  ix.  18 ;  Heb.  viii.  10-12. 


fable?  But  this  was,  and  ever  will  be,  the  condemnation  of  some,  that  "light 
is  come  into  the  world,  and  men  love  darkness  rather  than  light." 

About  the  next  expression,  of  the  world  of  the  elect,  I  shall  not  con 
tend.  That  by  the  name  of  "  the  world"  (which  term  is  used  in  the  Scrip 
tures  in  great  variety  of  significations),  the  elect,  as  being  in  and  of  this 
visible  world,  and  by  nature  no  better  than  the  rest  of  the  inhabitants 
thereof,  are  sometimes  peculiarly  intended,  is  proved  elsewhere,1  beyond 
whatever  Mr  B.  is  able  to  oppose  thereunto. 

Of  the  irresistible  working  of  the  Spirit,  in  bringing  men  to  believe,  the 
condition  is  otherwise.  About  the  term  "irresistible"  I  know  none  that 
care  much  to  strive.  That  "  faith  is  the  gift  of  God,  not  of  ourselves, 
that  it  is  wrought  in  us  by  the  exceeding  greatness  of  the  power  of  God; 
that  in  bestowing  it  upon  us  by  his  Spirit  (that  is,  in  our  conversion),  God 
effectually  creates  a  new  heart  in  us,  makes  us  new  creatures,  quickens  us, 
raises  us  from  the  dead,  working  in  us  to  will  and  to  do  of  his  own  good 
pleasure;  as  he  commanded  light  to  shine  out  of  darkness,  so  shining 
into  our  hearts,  to  give  us  the  knowledge  of  his  glory;2  begetting  us  anew 
of  his  own  will,"  so  irresistibly  causing  us  to  believe,  because  he  effec 
tually  works  faith  in  us, — is  the  sum  of  what  Mr  B.  here  rejecteth,  that  he 
might  be  sure,  as  before,  to  leave  nothing  of  weight  in  Christian  religion 
uncondemned.  But  these  trifles  and  falsities  being  renounced,  he  com 
plains  of  the  abuse  of  his  darling,  that  it  is  called  carnal  reason;  which 
being  the  only  interpreter  of  Scripture  which  he  allows  of,  he  cannot  but 
take  it  amiss  that  it  should  be  so  grossly  slandered  as  to  be  called  "carnal." 
The  Scripture,  indeed,  tells  us  of  a  "  natural  man,  that  cannot  discern 
the  things  which  are  of  God,  and  that  they  are  foolishness  to  him ;  of  a 
carnal  mind,  that  is  enmity  to  God,  and  not  like  to  have  any  reasons  or 
reasonings  but  what  are  carnal ;  of  a  wisdom  that  is  carnal,  sensual,  and 
devilish  ;s  of  a  wisdom  that  God  will  destroy  and  confound;"  and  that  such 
is  the  best  of  the  wisdom  and  reason  of  all  unregenerate  persons  ; — but 
why  the  reason  of  a  man  in  such  a  state,  with  such  a  mind  about  the 
things  of  God,  should  be  called  "  carnal,"  Mr  B.  can  see  no  reason ;  and 
some  men,  perhaps,  will  be  apt  to  think  that  it  is  because  all  his  reason  is 
still  carnal.  When  a  man  is  "  renewed  after  the  image  of  him  that  created 
him"  he  is  made  "spiritual,  light  in  the  Lord,"  every  thought  and  imagina 
tion  that  sets  up  itself  in  his  heart  in  opposition  to  God  being  led  captive 
to  the  obedience  of  the  gospel.  We  acknowledge  a  sanctified  reason  in 
such  an  one  of  that  use  in  the  dijudication  of  the  things  of  God  as  shall 
afterward  be  declared. 

^  Spiritual  desertions  are  nextly  decried.  Some  poor  souls  would  thank 
him  to  make  good  this  discovery.  They  find  mention  in  the  Scripture  of 
"God's  hiding  his  face,  withdrawing  himself,  forsaking,  though  but  for  a 
moment,"  and  of  them  that  on  this  account  "  walk  in  darkness  and  see  no 
light,  that  seek  him  and  find  him  not,  but  are  filled  with  troubles,  ter 
rors,  arrows  from  him,"  etc.*  And  this,  in  some  measure,  they  find  to  be 
the  condition  of  their  own  souls.  They  have  not  the  life,  light,  power, 
joy, .  consolation,  sense  of  God's  love,  as  formerly ;  and  therefore  they 
think  there  are  spiritual  desertions,  and  that  in  respect  of  their  souls  these 
dispensations  of  God  are  signally  and  significantly  so  termed ;  and  they  fear 
that  those  who  deny  all  desertions  never  had  any  enjoyments  from  or  of  God. 


Of  spiritual  incomes  there  is  the  same  reason.  It  is  not  the  phrase  of 
speech,  but  the  thing  itself,  we  contend  about.  That  God  who  is  the 
Father  of  mercy  and  God  of  all  consolation  gives  mercy,  grace,  joy,  peace, 
consolation,  as  to  whom,  so  in  what  manner  or  in  what  degree  he  pleaseth. 
The  receiving  of  these  from  God  is  by  some  (and  that,  perhaps,  not  in 
aptly)  termed  "spiritual  incomes,"  with  regard  to  God's  gracious  distribu 
tions  of  his  kindness,  love,  good-will,  and  the  receiving  of  them.  So  that 
it  be  acknowledged  that  we  do  receive  grace,  mercy,  joy,  consolation,  and 
peace  from  God,  variously  as  he  pleaseth,  we  shall  not  much  labour  about 
the  significancy  of  that  or  any  other  expression  of  the  like  kind.  The 
Scriptures  mentioning  the  "goings  forth  of  God,"  Micah  v.  2,  leave  no  just 
cause  to  Mr  B.  of  condemning  them  who  sometimes  call  any  of  his  works 
or  dispensations  his  outgoings. 

His  rehearsal  of  all  these  particular  instances,  in  doctrines  that  are  found 
neither  name  nor  thing  in  Scripture,  Mr  B.  closeth  with  an  "  etc.;"  which 
might  be  interpreted  to  oomprise  as  many  more,  but  that  there  remain  not 
as  many  more  important  heads  in  Christian  religion.  The  nature  of  God 
being  abased,  the  deity  and  grace  of  Christ  denied,  the  sin  of  our  natures 
and  their  renovation  by  grace  in  Christ  rejected,  Mr  B.'s  remaining  re 
ligion  will  be  found  scarce  worth  the  inquiry  after  by  those  whom  he 
undertakes  to  instruct,  there  being  scarcely  any  thing  left  by  him  from 
whence  we  are  peculiarly  denominated  Christians,  nor  any  thing  that 
should  support  the  weight  of  a  sinful  soul  which  approacheth  to  God  for 
life  and  salvation. 

To  prevent  the  entertainment  of  such  doctrines  as  these,  Mr  B.  com 
mends  the  advice  of  Paul,  2  Tim.  i.  13,  "  Hold  fast  the  form  of  sound 
words,"  etc. ;  than  which  we  know  none  more  wholesome  nor  more  useful 
for  the  safeguarding  and  defence  of  those  holy  and  heavenly  principles 
of  our  religion  which  Mr  B.  rejects  and  tramples  on.  JSTor  are  we  at  all 
concerned  in  his  following  discourse  of  leaving  Scripture  terms,  and  using 
phrases  and  expressions  coined  by  men  ;  for  if  we  use  any  word  or  phrase 
in  the  things  of  God  and  his  worship,  and  cannot  make  good  the  thing 
signified  thereby  to  be  founded  on  and  found  in  the  Scriptures,  we  will 
instantly  renounce  it.  But  if  indeed  the  words  and  expressions  %used  by 
any  of  the  ancients  for  the  explication  and  confirmation  of  the  faith  of 
the  gospel,  especially  of  the  doctrine  concerning  the  person  of  Christ,  in 
the  vindication  of  it  from  the  heretics  which  in  sundry  ages  bestirred 
themselves  (as  Mr  B.  now  doth)  in  opposition  thereunto,  be  found  con 
sonant  to  Scripture,  and  to  signify  nothing  but  what  is  written  therein 
with  the  beams  of  the  sun,  perhaps  we  see  more  cause  to  retain  them,  from 
the  opposition  here  made  to  them  by  Mr  B.,  than  formerly  we  did,  con 
sidering  that  his  opposition  to  words  and  phrases  is  not  for  their  own 
sake,  but  of  the  things  intended  by  them. 

The  similitude  of  "  the  ship  that  lost  its  first  matter  and  substance  by 
the  addition  of  new  pieces,  in  way  of  supplement  to  the  old  decays,"  having 
been  used  by  some  of  our  divines  to  illustrate  the  Boman  apostasy  and 
traditional  additionals  to  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  will  not  stand  Mr  B. 
in  the  least  stead,  unless  he  be  able  to  prove  that  we  have  lost,  in  the  re 
ligion  we  profess,  any  one  material  part  of  what  it  was  when  given  over  to 
the  churches  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  or  have  added  any  one  particular 
to  what  they  have  provided  and  furnished  us  withal  in  the  Scriptures ; 
which  until  he  hath  done,  by  these  and  the  like  insinuations  he  doth  but 
beg  the  thing  in  question ;  which,  being  a  matter  of  so  great  consequence 
and  importance  as  it  is,  will  scarce  be  granted  him  on  any  such  terms.  I 

VOL.  XII.  6 


doubt  not  but  it  will  appear  to  every  person  whatsoever,  in  the  process  of 
this  business,  who  hath  his  senses  any  thing  exercised  in  the  word  to  dis 
cern  between  good  and  evil,  and  whose  eyes  the  god  of  this  world  hath 
not  blinded,  that  the  glorious  light  of  the  gospel  of  God  should  not  shine 
into  their  hearts,  that  Mr  B.,  as  wise  as  he  deems  and  reports  himself 
to  be,  is  indeed,  like  the  foolish  woman  that  pulls  down  her  house  with 
both  her  hands,  labouring  to  destroy  the  house  of  God  with  all  his 
strength,  pretending  that  this  and  that  part  of  it  did  not  originally  be 
long  thereto  (or  like  Ajax,  in  his  madness,  who  killed  sheep,  and  supposed 
they  had  been  his  enemies1),  upon  the  account  of  that  enmity  which  he 
finds  in  his  own  mind  unto  them. 

The  close  of  Mr  B.'s  preface  contains  an  exhortation  to  the  study  of  the 
word,  with  an  account  of  the  success  he  himself  hath  obtained  in  the 
search  thereof,  both  in  the  detection  of  errors  and  the  discovery  of  sundry 
truths.  Some  things  I  shall  remark  upon  that  discourse,  and  shut  up  these 
considerations  of  his  preface  :  — 

For  his  own  success,  he  tells  us  "  That  being  otherwise  of  no  great 
abilities,  yet  searching  the  Scriptures  impartially,  he  hath  detected  many 
errors,  and  hath  presented  the  reader  with  a  body  of  religion  from  the 
Scriptures  ;  which  whoso  shall  well  ruminate  and  digest  will  be  enabled,"  etc. 
As  for  Mr  B.'s  abilities,  I  have  not  any  thing  to  do  to  call  them  into 
question:  whether  small  or  great,  he  will  one  day  find  that  he  hath 
scarce  used  them  to  the  end  for  which  he  is  intrusted  with  them  ;  and 
when  the  Lord  of  his  talents  shall  call  for  an  account,  it  will  scarce  be 
comfortable  to  him  that  he  hath  engaged  them  so  much  to  his  dishonour 
as  it  will  undoubtedly  appear  he  hath  done.  I  have  heard,  by  those  of 
Mr  B.'s  time  and  acquaintance  in  the  university,  that  what  ability  he  had 
then  obtained,  were  it  more  or  less,  he  still  delighted  to  be  exercising  of 
it  in  opposition  to  received  truths  in  philosophy  ;  and  whether  an  itching 
desire  of  novelty,  and  of  emerging  thereby,  lie  not  at  the  bottom  of  the 
course  he  hath  since  steered,  he  may  do  well  to  examine  himself. 

What  errors  he  hath  detected  (though  but  pretended  such,  which  honour 
in  the  next  place  he  assumes  to  himself)  I  know  not.  The  error  of  the 
deity  of  Christ  was  detected  in  the  apostles'  days  by  Ebion,  Cerinthus,  and 
others,8  —  not  long  after  by  Paulus  Samosatenus,  by  Photinus,  by  Arius, 
and  others;8  the  error  of  the  purity,  simplicity,  and  spirituality  of  the 
essence  of  God,  by  Audseus  and  the  Anthropomorphites  ;  the  error  of  the 
deity  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  long  since  detected  by  Macedonius  and  his 
companions;  the  error  of  original  sin,  or  the  corruption  of  our  nature,  by 
Pelagius;  the  error  of  the  satisfaction  and  merit  of  Christ,  by  Abelarclus; 
all  of  them,  by  Socinus,  Smalcius,  Crellius,  etc.  What  new  discoveries 
Mr  B.  hath  made  I  know  not,  nor  is  there  any  thing  that  he  presents  us 
with,  in  his  whole  body  of  religion,  as  stated  in  his  questions,  but  what  he 
Jiath  found  prepared,  digested,  and  modelled  to  his  hand  by  his  masters, 
the  Socinians,  unless  it  be  some  few  gross  notions  about  the  Deity  ;  nor  is 
so  much  as  the  language  which  here  he  useth  of  himself  and  his  discoveries 
his  own,  but  borrowed  of  Socinus,  Ep.  ad  Squarcialupum. 

We  have  not,  then,  the  least  reason  in  the  world  to  suppose  that  Mr  B.  was 
led  into  these  glorious  discoveries  by  reading  of  the  Scriptures,  much  less 
by  "impartial  reading  of  them;  "  but  that  they  are  all  the  fruits  of  a  deluded 

1  Sophoc.  in  Ajace,  /uu-nyt^,  1.  25,  43,  etc. 

3  Euseb.  Hist.  lib.  iii.  cap.  xxi.  ;  Iran,  ad  Haer.  lib.  i.  cap.  xxvi.  :  Epiphan.  User.  L 
torn.  ii.  lib.  i.  ;  Ruf.  cap.  xxvii. 

»  Euseb.  lib.  vii.  cap.  xxii.-xxiv.;  August.  Hser.  xliv.  ;  Epiphan.  Haer.  i.  lib.  ii.  ; 
Socrat.  Hist.  lib.  11.  cap.  xxiv.,  etc. 


heart,  given  up  righteously  of  God  to  believe  a  lie,  for  the  neglect  of  his 
word  and  contempt  of  reliance  upon  his  Spirit  and  grace  for  a  right  un 
derstanding  thereof,  by  the  cunning  sleights  of  the  forementioned  persons, 
in  some  of  whose  writings  Satan  lies  in  wait  to  deceive.  And  for  the 
"  body  of  religion"  which  he  hath  collected,  which  lies  not  in  the  answers, 
which  are  set  down  in  the  words  of  the  Scripture,  but  in  the  interpreta 
tions  and  conclusions  couched  in  his  questions,  I  may  safely  say  it  is  one 
of  the  most  corrupt  and  abominable  that  ever  issued  from  the  endeavours 
of  one  who  called  himself  a  Christian ;  for  a  proof  of  which  assertion  I 
refer  the  reader  to  the  ensuing  considerations  of  it.  So  that  whatever  pro 
mises  of  success  Mr  B.  is  pleased  to  make  unto  him  who  shall  ruminate 
and  digest  in  his  mind  this  body  of  his  composure  (it  being,  indeed,  stark 
poison,  that  will  never  be  digested,  but  will  fill  and  swell  the  heart  with 
pride  and  venom  until  it  utterly  destroy  the  whole  person),  it  may  justly  be 
feared  that  he  hath  given  too  great  an  advantage  to  a  sort  of  men  in  the 
world,  not  behind  Mr  B.  for  abilities  and  reason  (the  only  guide  allowed 
by  him  in  affairs  of  this  nature),  to  decry  the  use  and  reading  of  the  Scrip 
ture,  which  they  see  unstable  and  unlearned  men  fearfully  to  wrest  to  their 
own  destruction.  But  let  God  be  true,  and  all  men  liars.  Let  the  gospel 
run  and  prosper ;  and  if  it  be  hid  to  any,  it  is  to  them  whom  the  god  of 
this  world  hath  blinded,  that  the  glorious  light  thereof  should  not  shine 
into  their  hearts. 

What  may  farther  be  drawn  forth  of  the  same  kind  with  what  is  in 
these  Catechisms  delivered,  with  an  imposition  of  it  upon  the  Scripture,  as 
though  any  occasion  were  thence  administered  thereunto,  I  know  not,  buc 
yet  do  suppose  that  Satan  himself  is  scarce  able  to  furnish  the  thoughts 
of  men  with  many  more  abominations  of  the  like  length  and  breadth  with 
those  here  endeavoured  to  be  imposed  on  simple,  unstable  souls,  unless  he 
should  engage  them  into  downright  atheism  and  professed  contempt  of 

Of  what  tendency  these  doctrines  of  Mr  B.  are  unto  godliness,  which 
he  next  mentioneth,  will  in  its  proper  place  fall  under  consideration. 
It  is  true,  the  gospel  is  a  "  doctrine  according  to  godliness,"  and  aims  at 
the  promotion  of  it  in  the  hearts  and  lives  of  men,  in  order  to  the  ex 
altation  of  the  glory  of  God;  and  hence  it  is  that  so  soon  as  any  poor 
deluded  soul  falls  into  the  snare  of  Satan,  and  is  taken  captive  under 
the  power  of  any  error  whatever,  the  first  sleight  he  puts  in  practice 
•  for  the  promotion  of  it  is  to  declaim  about  its  excellency  and  useful 
ness  for  the  furtherance  of  godliness,  though  himself  in  the  meantime  be 
under  the  power  of  darkness,  and  knows  not  in  the  least  what  belongs  to 
the  godliness  which  he  professeth  to  promote.  As  to  what  Mr  B.  here 
draws  forth  to  that  purpose,  I  shall  be  bold  to  tell  him  that  to  the  accom 
plishment  of  a  godliness  amongst  men  (since  the  fall  of  Adam)  that  hath 
not  its  rise  and  foundation  in  the  effectual,  powerful  changing  of  the 
whole  man  from  death  to  life,  darkness  to  light,  etc.,  in  the  washing  off  the 
pollutions  of  nature  by  the  blood  of  Christ ;  that  is  not  wrought  in  us  and 
carried  on  by  the  efficacy  of  the  Spirit  of  grace,  taking  away  the  heart  of 
stone  and  giving  a  new  heart  circumcised  to  fear  the  Lord ;  that  is  not 
purchased  and  procured  for  us  by  the  oblation  and  intercession  of  the 
Lord  Jesus;  a  godliness  that  is  not  promoted  by  the  consideration  of  the 
viciousness  and  corruption  of  our  hearts  by  nature,  and  their  alienation 
from  God,  and  that  doth  not  in  a  good  part  of  it  consist  in  the  mortifying, 
killing,  slaying  of  the  sin  of  nature  that  dwelleth  in  us,  and  in  an  opposition 
to  all  the  actings  and  workings  of  it;  a  godliness  that  is  performed  by 


our  own  strength  in  yielding  obedience  to  the  precepts  of  the  -word,  that  by 
that  obedience  we  may  be  justified  before  God  and  for  it  accepted,  etc., — - 
there  is  not  one  tittle,  letter,  nor  iota,  in  the  whole  book  of  God  tending. 

Mr  B.  closeth  his  preface  with  a  commendation  of  the  Scriptures,  their 
excellency  and  divinity,  with  the  eminent  success  that  they  shall  find  who 
yield  obedience  to  them,  in  that  they  shall  be,  "  even  in  this  life,  equal 
unto  ano-els."  His  expressions,  at  first  view,  seem  to  separate  him  from  his 
companions  in  his  body  of  divinity,  which  he  pretends  to  collect  from  the 
Scriptures,  whose  low  thoughts  and  bold  expressions  concerning  the  con 
tradictions  in  them  shall  afterward  be  pointed  unto ;  but  1  fear  "  latet  anguis 
in  herba:"  and  in  this  kiss  of  the  Scriptures,  with  "hail"  unto  them,  there  is 
vile  treachery  intended,  and  the  betraying  of  them  into  the  hands  of  men, 
to  be  dealt  withal  at  their  pleasure.  I  desire  not  to  entertain  evil  surmises 
of  any  (what  just  occasion  soever  be  given  on  any  other  account)  concern 
ing  things  that  have  not  their  evidence  and  conviction  in  themselves.  The 
bleating  of  that  expression,  "  The  Scriptures  are  the  exactest  rule  of  a  holy 
life,"  evidently  allowing  other  rules  of  a  holy  life,  though  they  be  the  ex 
actest,  and  admitting  other  things  or  books  into  a  copartnership  with  them 
in  that  their  use  and  service,  though  the  pre-eminence  be  given  to  them, 
sounds  as  much  to  their  dishonour  as  any  thing  spoken  of  them  by  any 
who  ever  owned  them  to  have  proceeded  from  God.  It  is  the  glory  of 
the  Scriptures,  not  only  to  be  the  rule,  but  the  only  one,  of  walking  with 
God.  If  you  take  any  others  into  comparison  with  it,  and  allow  them  in 
the  trial  to  be  rules  indeed,  though  not  so  exact  as  the  Scripture,  you  do 
no  less  cast  down  the  Scripture  from  its  excellency  than  if  you  denied  it 
to  be  any  rule  at  all.  It  will  not  lie  as  one  of  the  many,  though  you  say 
never  so  often  that  it  is  the  best.  What  issues  there  will  be  of  the  en 
deavour  to  give  reason  the  absolute  sovereignty  in  judging  of  rules  of 
holiness,  allowing  others,  but  preferring  the  Scripture,  and  therein,  with 
out  other  assistance,  determining  of  all  the  contents  of  it,  in  order  to  its 
utmost  end,  God  in  due  time  will  manifest.  We  confess  (to  close  with 
Mr  B.)  that  true  obedience  to  the  Scriptures  makes  men,  even  in  this  life, 
equal  in  some  sense  unto  angels ;  not  upon  the  account  of  their  perform 
ance  of  that  obedience  merely,  as  though  there  could  be  an  equality  be 
tween  the  obedience  yielded  by  us  whilst  we  are  yet  sinners,  and  continue 
so  (for  "  if  we  say  we  have  no  sin,  we  deceive  ourselves"),  and  the  exact 
obedience  of  them  who  never  sinned,  but  abide  in  doing  the  will  of  God : 
but  the  principal  and  main  work  of  God  required  in  them,  and  which  is 
the  root  of  all  other  obedience  whatever,  being  to  "  believe  on  him  whom 
he  hath  -sent,"  to  "  as  many  as  so  believe  on  him  and  so  receive  him  power 
is  given  to  become  the  sons  of  God ;"  who  being  so  adopted  into  the  great 
family  of  heaven  and  earth,  which  is  called  after  God's  name,  and  in 
vested  with  all  the  privileges  thereof,  having  fellowship  with  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  they  are  in  that  regard,  even  in  this  life,  equal  to  angels. 

Having  thus,  as  briefly  as  I  could,  washed  off  the  paint  that  was  put 
upon  the  porch  of  Mr  B.'s  fabric,  and  discovered  it  to  be  a  composure  of 
rotten  posts  and  dead  men's  bones, — whose  pargeting  being  removed,  their 
abomination  lies  naked  to  all, — I  shall  enter  the  building  or  heap  itself,  to 
consider  what  entertainment  he  hath  provided  therein  for  those  whom,  in 
the  entrance,  he  doth  so  subtilely  and  earnestly  invite  to  turn  in  and  par 
take  of  his  provisions. 



Mr  Biddle's  first  chapter  examined — Qf  the  Scriptures. 

MR  BIDDLE  having  imposed  upon  himself  the  task  of  insinuating 
his  abominations  by  applying  the  express  words  of  Scripture  in  way 
of  answer  to  his  captious  and  sophistical  queries,  was  much  straitened 
in  the  very  entrance,  in  that  he  could  not  find  any  text  or  tittle  in 
them  that  is  capable  of  being  wrested  to  give  the  least  colour  to 
those  imperfections  which  the  residue  of  men  with  whom  he  is,  in 
the  whole  system  of  his  doctrine,  in  compliance  and  communion,  do 
charge  them  withal:  as,  that  there  are  contradictions  in  them, 
though  in  things  of  less  importance;1  that  many  things  are  or  may 
be  changed  and  altered  in  them;  that  some  of  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  are  lost;  and  that  those  that  remain  are  not  of  any  ne 
cessity  to  Christians,  although  they  may  be  read  with  profit.  Their 
subjecting  them,  also,  and  all  their  assertions,  to  the  last  judgment 
of  reason,  is  of  the  same  nature  with  the  other.  But  it  not  being 
my  purpose  to  pursue  his  opinions  through  all  the  secret  windings 
and  turnings  of  them,  so  [as]  to  drive  them  to  their  proper  issue, 
but  only  to  discover  the  sophistry  and  falseness  of  those  insinuations 
which  grossly  and  palpably  overthrow  the  foundations  of  Christi 
anity,  I  shall  not  force  him  to  speak  to  any  thing  beyond  what  he 
hath  expressly  delivered  himself  unto. 

This  first  chapter,  then,  concerning  the  Scriptures,  both  in  the 
Greater  and  Less  Catechisms,  without  farther  trouble  I  shall  pass  over, 
seeing  that  the  stating  of  the  questions  and  answers  in  them  may  be 
sound,  and  according  to  the  common,  faith  of  the  saints,  in  those 
who  partake  not  with  Mr  B/s  companions  in  their  low  thoughts 
of  them,  which  here  he  doth  not  profess;  only,  I  dare  not  join  with 
him  in  his  last  assertion,  that  such  and  such  passages  are  the  most 

1  Socin.  de  Author.  Sac.  Scrip,  cap.  i.  Racov.  anno  1611,  p.  13  ;  Socin.  Lect.  Sacr. 
p.  18  ;  Episcop.  Disput.  de  Author.  Scrip,  thes.  3 ;  Volkel.  de  Vera  Relig.  lib.  v.  cap.  v. 
p.  375.  "  Socinus autem  videtur  rectius  de  SS.  opinari." — Ep.  ad  Eadec.  3,  p.  140.  "  Ego 
quidem  sentio,  nihil  in  Scriptis,  quse  communiter  ab  iis,  qui  Christian!  sunt  dicti,  rc- 
cepta,  et  pro  divinis  habita  sunt,  constanter  legi,  quod  non  sit  verissimum  :  hocque  ad 
divinam  providentiam  pertinere  prorsus  arbitror,  ut  ejusmodi  scripta,  nunquam  depra- 
ventur  aut  corrumpantur,  neque  ex  to  to,  neque  ex  parte." 


affectionate  in  the  look  of  God,  seeing  we  know  but  in  part,  and 
are  not  enabled  nor  warranted  to  make  such  peremptory  determina 
tions  concerning  the  several  passages  of  Scripture,  set  in  comparison 
and  competition  for  affectionateness  by  ourselves. 


Of  the  nature  of  God. 

His  second  chapter,  which  is  concerning  God,  his  essence,  nature, 
and  properties,  is  second  to  none  in  his  whole  book  for  blasphemies 
and  reproaches  of  God  and  his  word. 

The  description  of  God. which  he  labours  to  insinuate  is,  that  he 
is  "  one  person,  of  a  visible  shape  and  similitude,  finite,  limited  to 
a  certain  place,  mutable,  comprehensible,  and  obnoxious  to  turbulent 
passions,  not  knowing  the  things  that  are  future  and  which  shall  be 
done  by  the  sons  of  men ;  whom  none  can  love  with  all  his  heart,  if 
he  believe  him  to  be  '  one  in  three  distinct  persons/" 

That  this  is  punctually  the  apprehension  and  notion  concerning 
God  and  his  being  which  he  labours  to  beget,  by  his  suiting  Scrip 
ture  expressions  to  the  blasphemous  insinuations  of  his  questions, 
will  appear  in  the  consideration  of  both  questions  and  answers,  as 
they  lie  in  the  second  chapter  of  the  Greater  Catechism. 

His  first  question  is,  "  How  many  Gods  of  Christians  are  there  V* 
and  his  answer  is,  "  One  God/'  Eph.  iv.  6  ;  whereunto  he  subjoins 
secondly,  "  Who  is  this  one  God  ?"  and  answers,  "  The  Father,  of 
whom  are  all  things,"  1  Cor.  viii.  6. 

That  the  intendment  of  the  connection  of  these  queries,  and  the 
suiting  of  words  of  Scripture  to  them,  is  to  insinuate  some  thoughts 
against  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  is  not  questionable,  especially 
being  the  work  of  him  that  makes  it  his  business  to  oppose  it  and 
laugh  it  to  scorn.  With  what  success  this  attempt  is  managed,  a 
little  consideration  of  what  is  offered  will  evince.  It  is  true,  Paul 
says,  "  To  us  there  is  one  God,"  treating  of  the  vanity  and  nothing 
ness  of  the  idols  of  the  heathen,  whom  God  hath  threatened  to 
deprive  of  all  worship  and  to  starve  out  of  the  world.  The  ques 
tion  as  here  proposed,  "  How  many  Gods  of  Christians  are  there  ?" 
having  no  such  occasion  administered  unto  it  as  that  expression  of 
Paul,  being  no  parcel  of  such  a  discourse  as  he  insists  upon,  sounds 
pleasantly  towards  the  allowance  of  many  gods,  though  Christians 
have  but  one.  Neither  is  Mr  B.  so  averse  to  polytheism  as  not  to 
give  occasion,  on  other  accounts,  to  this  supposal.  Jesus  Christ  he 
allows  to  be  a  god.  All  his  companions,  in  the  undertaking  against 


his  truly  eternal  divine  nature,  still  affirm  him  to  be  "  Homo  Deifi- 
catus"  and  "  Deus  Factus,"1  and  plead  "  pro  vera  deitate  Jesu 
Christi,"  denying  yet,  with  him,  that  by  nature  he  is  God,  of  the 
same  essence  with  the  Father ;  so,  indeed,  grossly  and  palpably  fall 
ing  into  and  closing  with  that  abomination  which  they  pretend 
above  all  men  to  avoid,  in  their  opposition  to  the  thrice  holy  and 
blessed  Trinity.  Of  those  monstrous  figments  in  Christian  religion 
which  on  this  occasion  they  have  introduced,  of  making  a  man  to  be 
an  eternal  God,  of  worshipping  a  mere  creature  with  the  worship 
due  only  to  the  infinitely  blessed  God,  we  shall  speak  afterward. 

We  confess  that  to  us  there  is  one  God,  but  one  God,  and  let  all 
others  be  accursed.  "  The  gods  that  have  not  made  the  heavens  and 
the  earth,"  let  them  be  destroyed,  according  to  the  word  of  the  Lord, 
"  from  under  these  heavens/'  Jer.  x.  11.  Yet  we  say,  moreover,  that 
"there  are  three  that  bear  record  in  heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  these  three  are  one,"  1  John  v.  7.  And  in  that 
very  place  whence  Mr  B.  cuts  off  his  first  answer,  as  it  is  asserted  that 
there  is  "  one  God,"  so  "  one  Lord"  and  "  one  Spirit,"  the  fountain, 
of  all  spiritual  distributions,  are  mentioned;  which  whether  they  are 
not  also  that  one  God,  we  shall  have  farther  occasion  to  consider. 

To  the  next  query  concerning  this  one  God,  who  he  is,  the  words 
are,  "  The  Father,  from  whom  are  all  things ;"  in  themselves  most 
true.  The  Father  is  the  one  God  whom  we  worship  in  spirit  and  in 
truth  ;  and  yet  the  Son  also  is  "  our  Lord  and  our  God,"  John  xx. 
28,  even  "  God  over  all,  blessed  for  ever,"  Rom.  ix.  5.  The  Spirit 
also  is  the  God  "which  worketh  all  in  all,"  1  Cor.  xii.  6, 11.  And  in 
the  name  of  that  one  God,  who  is  the  "Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost," 
are  we  baptized,  whom  we  serve,  who  to  us  is  the  one  God  over  all, 
Matt,  xxviii.  19.  Neither  is  that  assertion  of  the  Father's  being  the 
one  and  only  true  God  any  more  prejudicial  to  the  Son's  being  so 
also,  than  that  testimony  given  to  the  everlasting  deity  of  the  Son 
is  to  that  of  the  Father,  notwithstanding  that  to  us  there  is  but  one 
God.  The  intendment  of  our  author  in  these  questions  is  to  answer 
what  he  found  in  the  great  exemplar  of  his  Catechism,  the  Racovian, 
two  of  whose  questions  are  comprehensive  of  all  that  is  here  delivered 
and  intended  by  Mr  B.a  But  of  these  things  more  afterward. 

1  Smalc.  de  Divinit.  Jes.  Christ,  edit.  Eacov.   anno  1608,  per  Jacob.  Sienienskia ; 
Volkel.  de  Vera  Eelig.  lib.  v.  cap.  x.  pp.  425,  468,  et  antea,  p.  206  ;  Cat.  Eac.  cap.  i., 
de  Cognit.  Christ,  quaest.  3  ;  Confession  de  Foi,  des  Chrestiens,  qui  croyent  en  un  seul 
Dieu  le  Pere,  etc.,  pp.  18,  19 ;  Jonas  Schlichtingius,  ad  Meisner.  artic.  de  Filio  Dei,  p. 
387 ;  Socin.  Resp.  ad  Weik.  p.  8 ;  et  passim  reliqui. 

2  "  Exposuisti  quae  cognitu  ad  salutem  de   essentia  Dei  sunt  prorsus  necessaria, 
expone  quse  ad  earn  rem  vehementer  utilia  esse  censeas.     R.  Id  quidem  est  ut  cognos- 
camus  in  essentia  Dei  unam  tantum  personam  esse.      Demonstra  hoc  ipsum.     R.  Hoc 
sane  vel  hinc  patere  potest,  quod  essentia  Dei  sit  una  numero;  quapropter  plures 
numero  personse,  in  ea  esse  nullo  pacto  possunt.     Qusenam  est  haec  una  persona  divina  ? 
R.  Eet  ille  Deusunus,  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christ!  Pater,  1  Cor.viii.  6." — Cat.  Eac.  cap.  i.f 
de  Cognit.  Dei,  de  Dei  Essentia. 


His  next  inquiry  is  after  the  nature  of  this  one  God,  which  he 
answers  with  that  of  our  Saviour  in  John  iv.  24,  "  God  is  a  spirit." 
In  this  he  is  somewhat  more  modest,  though  not  so  wary  as  his  great 
master,  Faustus  Socinus,  and  his  disciple  (as  to  his  notions  about  the 
nature  of  God)  Vorstius.  His  acknowledgment  of  God  to  be  a  spirit 
frees  him  from  sharing  in  impudence  in  this  particular  with  his 
master,  who  will  not  allow  any  such  thing  to  be  asserted  in  these 
words  of  our  Saviour.  His  words  are  (Fragment.  Disput.  de  Adorat. 
Christi  cum  Christiano  Franken,  p.  60),  "  Non  est  fortasse  eorum 
verborum  ea  sententia,  quam  plerique  omnes  arbitrantur :  Deum 
scilicet  esse  spiritum,  neque  enim  subaudiendum  esse  dicit  aliquis 
verbum  sffri}  quasi  vox  irvtvpat,,  recto  casu  accipienda  sit,  sed  awb 
xoivou  repetendum  verbum  fyrs?,  quod  paulo  ante  prsecessit,  et  irvivpu 
quarto  casu  accipiendum,  ita  ut  sententia  sit,  Deum  quarere  et  postu- 
lare  spiritum."  Vorstius  also  follows  him,  Not.  ad  Disput.  3,  p.  200. 
Because  the  verb  substantive  "  is"  is  not  in  the  original  expressed 
(than  the  omission  whereof  nothing  being  more  frequent,  though  I 
have  heard  of  one  who,  from  the  like  omission,  2  Cor.  v.  1 7,  thought 
to  have  proved  Christ  to  be  the  "new  creature"  there  intended),  con 
trary  to  the  context  and  coherence  of  the  words,  design  of  the  argu 
ment  in  hand  insisted  on  by  our  Saviour  (as  he  was  a  bold  man), 
and  emphaticalness  of  significancy  in  the  expression  as  it  lies,  he 
will  needs  thrust  in  the  word  "  seeketh,"  and  render  the  intention 
of  Christ  to  be,  that  God  seeks  a  spirit,  that  is,  the  spirit  of  men,  to 
worship  him.  Herein,  I  say,  is  Mr  B.  more  modest  than  his  master 
(as,  it  seems,  following  Crellius,1  who  in  the  exposition  of  that  place 
of  Scripture  is  of  another  mind),  though  in  craft  and  foresight  he  be 
outgone  by  him;  for  if  God  be  a  spirit  indeed,  one  of  a  pure  spiri 
tual  essence  and  substance,  the  image,  shape,  and  similitude,  which 
he  afterwards  ascribes  to  him,  his  corporeal  posture,  which  he  asserts 
(ques.  4),  will  scarcely  be  found  suitable  unto  him.  It  is  incumbent 
on  some  kind  of  men  to  be  very  wary  in  what  they  say,  and  mindful 
of  what  they  have  said  ;  falsehood  hath  no  consistency  in  itself,  no 
more  than  with  the  truth.  Smalcius  in  the  Racovian  Catechism  is 
utterly  silent  as  to  this  question  and  answer.  But  the  consideration 
of  this  also  will  in  its  due  place  succeed. 

To  his  fourth  query,  about  a  farther  description  of  God  by  some 
of  his  attributes,  I  shall  not  need  to  subjoin  any  thing  in  way  of 
animadversion ;  for  however  the  texts  he  cites  come  short  of  deli 
vering  that  of  God  which  the  import  of  the  question  to  which  they 

1 "  Significat  enim  Christus  id,  quod  ratio  ipsa  dictat,  Deum,  cum  spiritus  sit,  non. 
nisi  spiritualibus  revera  delectari." — Crell.  de  Deo  :  seu  de  Vera  Relig.  lib.  i,  cap.  xv. 
p.  108.  "Spiritus  estDeus :  animadverterunt  ibi  omnespropeS.  literarum  interpretes, 
Dei  nomen,  quod  articulo  est  in  Grseco  notatum,  subject!  locum  tenere :  vocem,  spiritus, 
quse  articulo  caret,  prsedicati :  et  spiritualem  significare  substantiam.  Ita  perinde  est 
ac  si  dictum  fuisset,  Deus  est  spiritus,  seu  spiritualis  substantial' — Idem  ibid,  p.  107. 


are  annexed  doth  require,  yet  being  not  wrested  to  give  countenance 
to  any  perverse  apprehension  of  his  nature,  I  shall  not  need  to  insist 
upon  the  consideration  of  them. 

Ques.  5,  he  falls  closely  to  his  work,  in  these  words,  "Is  not  God, 
according  to  the  current  of  the  Scriptures,  in  a  certain  place,  namely, 
in  heaven?"  whereunto  he  answers  by  many  places  of  Scripture 
that  make  mention  of  God  in  heaven. 

That  we  may  not  mistake  his  mind  and  intention  in  this  query, 
some  light  may  be  taken  from  some  other  passages  in  his  book.  In 
the  preface  he  tells  you  "That  God  hath  a  similitude  and  shape"  (of 
which  afterward),  "and  hath  his  place  in  the  heavens"  (that  "  God  is 
in  no  certain  place,"  he  reckons  amongst  those  errors  he  opposes,  in 
the  same  preface;  of  the  same  kind  he  asserteth  the  belief  to  be 
of  God's  "being  infinite  and  incomprehensible);"  and,  Cat.  Less.  p.  6, 
"That  God  glisteneth  with  glory,  and  is  resident  in  a  certain  place 
of  the  heavens,  so  that  one  may  distinguish  between  his  right 
and  left  hand  by  bodily  sight."  This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  man 
with  whom  we  have  to  do  concerning  the  presence  of  God.  "  He 
is,"  saith  he,  "  in  heaven,  as  in  a  certain  place."  That  which  is  in 
a  certain  place  is  finite  and  limited,  as,  from  the  nature  of  a  place 
and  the  manner  of  any  thing's  being  in  a  place,  shall  be  instantly 
evinced.  God,  then,  is  finite  and  limited  ;  be  it  so  (that  he  is  infi 
nite  and  incomprehensible  is  yet  a  Scripture  expi'ession) :  yea,  he  is 
so  limited  as  not  to  be  extended  to  the  whole  compass  and  limit  of 
the  heavens,  but  he  is  in  a  certain  place  of  the  heavens,  yea,  so  cir 
cumscribed  as  that  a  man  may  see  from  his  right  hand  to  his  left ; — 
wherein  Mr  B.  comes  short  of  Mohammed,  who  affirms  that  when 
he  was  taken  into  heaven  to  the  sight  of  God,  he  found  three  days' 
journey  between  his  eye-brows ;  which  if  so,  it  will  be  somewhat 
hard  for  any  one  to  see  from  his  right  hand  to  his  left,  being  sup 
posed  at  an  answerable  distance  to  that  of  his  eye-brows.  Let  us 
see,  then,  on  what  testimony,  by  what  authority,  Mr  B.  doth  here 
limit  the  Almighty  and  confine  him  to  a  certain  place,  shutting 
up  his  essence  and  being  in  some  certain  part  of  the  heavens,  cutting 
him  thereby  short,  as  we  shall  see  in  the  issue,  in  all  those  eternal 
perfections  whereby  hitherto  he  hath  been  known  to  the  sons  of  men. 

The  proof  of  that  lies  in  the  places  of  Scripture  which,  making 
mention  of  God,  say,  "  he  is  in  heaven,"  and  that  "  he  looketh  down 
from  heaven,"  etc. ;  of  which,  out  of  some  concordance,  some  twenty 
or  thirty  are  by  him  repeated.  Not  to  make  long  work  of  a  short 
business,  the  Scriptures  say,  "  God  is  in  heaven."  Who  ever 
denied  it?  But  do  the  Scriptures  say  he  is  nowhere  else?  Do 
the  Scriptures  say  he  is  confined  to  heaven,  so  that  he  is  so 
there  as  not  to  be  in  all  other  places  ?  If  Mr  B.  thinks  this  any 
argument,  "  God  is  in  heaven,  therefore  his  essence  is  not  infinite 


and  immense,  therefore  he  is  not  everywhere/'  we  are  not  of  his 
mind.  He  tells  you,  in  his  preface,  that  he  "asserts  nothing  himself/' 
I  presume  his  reason  was,  lest  any  should  call  upon  him  for  a  proof 
of  his  assertions.  What  he  intends  to  insinuate,  and  what  concep 
tions  of  God  he  labours  to  ensnare  the  minds  of  unlearned  and 
unstable  souls  withal,  in  this  question  under  consideration,  hath 
been,  from  the  evidence  of  his  intendment  therein,  and  the  concurrent 
testimony  of  other  expressions  of  his  to  the  same  purpose,  demon 
strated.  To  propose  any  thing  directly  in  way  of  proof  of  the  truth 
of  that  which  he  labours  insensibly  to  draw  the  minds  of  men  unto, 
he  was  doubtless  conscious  to  himself  of  so  much  disability  for  its 
performance  as  to  waive  that  kind  of  procedure ;  and  therefore 
his  whole  endeavour  is,  having  rilled,  animated,  and  spirited  the 
understandings  of  men  with  the  notion  couched  in  his  question,  to 
cast  in  some  Scripture  expressions,  that,  as  they  lie,  may  seem  fitted 
to  the  fixing  of  the  notion  before  begotten  in  them.  As  to  any 
attempt  of  direct  proof  of  what  he  would  have  confirmed,  the  man 
of  reason  is  utterly  silent. 

None  of  those  texts  of  Scripture  where  mention  is  made  of 
God's  being  in  heaven  are,  in  the  coherence  and  dependence  of 
speech  wherein  they  lie,  suited  or  intended  at  all  to  give  answer  to 
this  question,  or  any  like  it,  concerning  the  presence  of  God  or  his 
actual  existence  in  any  place,  but  only  in  respect  of  some  dispensa 
tions  of  God  and  works  of  his,  whose  fountain  and  original  he  would 
have  us  to  consider  in  himself,  and  to  come  forth  from  him  there 
where  in  an  eminent  manner  he  manifests  his  glory.  God  is,  I 
say,  in  none  of  the  places  by  him  urged  said  to  be  in  heaven  in 
respect  of  his  essence  or  being,  nor  is  it  the  intention  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  any  of  them  to  declare  the  manner  of  God's  essential 
presence  and  existence  in  reference  to  all  or  any  place  ;  but  only  by 
the  way  of  eminency,  in  respect  of  manifestations  of  himself  and 
operations  from  his  glorious  presence,  doth  he  so  speak  of  him.  And, 
indeed,  in  those  expressions,  heaven  doth  not  so  much  signify  a  place 
as  a  thing,  or  at  least  a  place  in  reference  to  the  things  there  done, 
or  the  peculiar  manifestations  of  the  glory  of  God  there ;  so  that  if 
these  places  should  be  made  use  of  as  to  the  proof  of  the  figment  in 
sinuated,  the  argument  from  them  would  be  a  non  causa  pro  causa. 
The  reason  why  God  is  said  to  be  in  heaven  is,  not  because  his  es 
sence  is  included  in  a  certain  place  so  called,  but  because  of  the 
more  eminent  manifestations  of  his  glory  there,  and  the  regard  which 
he  requires  to  be  had  of  him  manifesting  his  glory  as  the  first  cause 
and  author  of  all  the  works  which  outwardly  are  of  him. 
•  3.  God  is  said  to  be  in  heaven  in  an  especial  manner,  because  he 
hath  assigned  that  as  the  place  of  the  saints'  expectation  of  that 
enjoyment  and  eternal  frvition  of  himself  which  he  hath  promised 


to  bless  them  withal ;  but  for  the  limiting  of  his  essence  to  a  certain 
place  in  heaven,  the  Scriptures,  as  we  shall  see,  know  nothing,  yea, 
expressly  and  positively  affirm  the  contrary. 

Let  us  all,  then,  supply  our  catechumens,  in  the  room  of  Mr  B/s, 
with  this  question,  expressly  leading  to  the  things  inquired  after  : — 

What  says  the  Scripture  concerning  the  essence  and  presence 
of  God  ?  is  it  confined  and  limited  to  a  certain  place,  or  is  he  in 
finitely  and  equally  present  everywhere  ? 

Ans.  "  The  LORD  your  God,  he  is  God  in  heaven  above,  and 
in  earth  beneath,"  Joshua  ii.  11.  "But  will  God  indeed  dwell 
on  the  earth  ?  behold,  the  heaven  and  heaven  of  heavens  cannot 
contain  thee ;  how  much  less  this  house  that  I  have  builded  ? " 
1  Kings  viii.  27.  "Whither  shall  I  go  from  thy  Spirit?  or  whither 
shall  I  flee  from  thy  presence  ?  If  I  ascend  up  into  heaven,  thou 
art  there :  if  I  make  my  bed  in  hell,  behold,  thou  art  there,"  etc., 
Ps.  cxxxix.  7-1 0.  "  The  heaven  is  my  throne,  and  the  earth  is  my 
footstool,"  Isa.  Ixvi.  1,  Acts  vii.  47,  48.  "Am  I  a  God  at  hand, 
saith  the  LORD,  and  not  a  God  afar  off?  Can  any  hide  himself  in 
secret  places  that  I  shall  not  see  him  ?  saith  the  LORD.  Do  not 
I  fill  heaven  and  earth  ?  saith  the  LORD,"  Jer.  xxiii.  23,  24. 

It  is  of  the  ubiquity  and  omnipresence  of  God  that  these  places 
expressly  treat ;  and  whereas  it  was  manifested  before  that  the  ex 
pression  of  God  being  in  heaven  doth  not  at  all  speak  to  the  abomi 
nation  which  Mr  B.  would  insinuate  thereby,  the  naked  rehearsal 
of  those  testimonies,  so  directly  asserting  and  ascribing  to  the 
Almighty  an  infinite,  unlimited  presence,  and  that  in  direct  opposi 
tion  to  the  gross  apprehension  of  his  being  confined  to  a  certain 
place  in  heaven,  is  abundantly  sufficient  to  deliver  the  thoughts  and 
minds  of  men  from  any  entanglements  that  Mr  B/s  questions  and 
answers  (for  though  it  be  the  word  of  the  Scripture  he  insists  upon, 
yet  male  dum  recitas  incipit  esse  tuuni)  might  lead  them  into. 
On  that  account  no  more  need  be  added ;  but  yet  this  occasion  being 
administered,  that  truth  itself,  concerning  the  omnipresence  or 
ubiquity  of  God,  may  be  farther  cleared  and  confirmed. 

Through  the  prejudices  and  ignorance  of  men,  it  is  inquired 
whether  God  be  so  present  in  any  certain  place  as  not  to  be  also 
equally  elsewhere,  everywhere? 

Place  has  been  commonly  defined  to  be  "  superficies  corporis 
ambientis."  Because  of  sundry  inextricable  difficulties  and  the  impos 
sibility  of  suiting  it  to  every  place,  this  definition  is  now  generally 
decried.  That  now  commonly  received  is  more  natural,  suited  to 
the  natures  of  things,  and  obvious  to  the  understanding.  A  place 
is  "  spatium  corporis  susceptivum," — any  space  wherein  a  body  may 
be  received  and  contained.  The  first  consideration  of  it  is  as  to  its 
fitness  and  aptness  so  to  receive  any  body  :  so  it  is  in  the  imagina- 


tion  only.  The  second,  as  to  its  actual  existence,  being  filled  with 
that  body  which  it  is  apt  to  receive  :  so  may  we  imagine  innumer 
able  spaces  in  heaven  which  are  apt  and  able  to  receive  the  bodies 
of  the  saints,  and  which  actually  shall  be  filled  with  them  when 
they  shall  be  translated  thereunto  by  the  power  of  God. 

Presence  in  a  place  is  the  actual  existence  of  a  person  in  his  place, 
or,  as  logicians  speak,  in  his  ubi,  that  is,  answering  the  inquiry  after 
him  where  he  is.  Though  all  bodies  are  in  certain  places,  yet  per 
sons  only  are  said  to  be  present  in  them.  Other  things  have  not  pro 
perly  a  presence  to  be  ascribed  to  them  ;  they  are  in  their  proper 
places,  but  we  do  not  say  they  are  present  in  or  to  their  placea 

This  being  the  general  description  of  a  place  and  the  presence  of 
any  therein,  it  is  evident  that  properly  it  cannot  be  spoken  at  all  of 
God  that  he  is  in  one  place  or  other,  for  he  is  not  a  body  that 
should  fill  up  the  space  of  its  receipt,  nor  yet  in  all  places,  taking 
the  word  properly,  for  so  one  essence  can  be  but  in  one  place  ;  and 
if  the  word  should  properly  be  ascribed  to  God  in  any  sense,  it  would 
deprive  him  of  all  his  infinite  perfections. 

It  is  farther  said  that  there  be  three  ways  of  the  presence  of  any 
in  reference  to  a  place  or  places.  Some  are  so  in  a  place  as  to  be 
circumscribed  therein  in  respect  of  their  parts  and  dimensions,  such 
are  their  length,  breadth,  and  depth  :  so  doth  one  part  of  them  fit  one 
part  of  the  place  wherein  they  are,  and  the  whole  the  whole  ;  so  are 
all  solid  bodies  in  a  place  ;  so  is  a  man,  his  whole  body  in  his  whole 
place,  his  head  in  one  part  of  it,  his  arms  in  another.  Some  are  so 
conceived  to  be  in  a  place  as  that,  in  relation  to  it,  it  may  be  said  of 
them  that  they  are  there  in  it  so  as  not  to  be  anywhere  else,  though 
they  have  not  parts  and  dimensions  filling  the  place  wherein  they 
are,  nor  are  punctually  circumscribed  with  a  local  space  :  such  is  the 
presence  of  angels  and  spirits  to  the  places  wherein  they  are,  being 
not  infinite  or  immense.  These  are  so  in  some  certain  place  as  not  to 
be  at  the  same  time,  wherein  they  are  so,  without  it,  or  elsewhere,  or 
in  any  other  place.  And  this  is  proper  to  all  finite,  immaterial  sub 
stances,  that  are  so  in  a  place  as  not  to  occupy  and  fill  up  that  space 
wherein  they  are.  In  respect  of  place,  God  is  immense,  and  indis- 
tant  to  all  things  and  places,  absent  from  nothing,  no  place,  contained 
in  none  ;  present  to  all  by  and  in  his  infinite  essence  and  being,  ex 
erting  his  power  variously,  in  any  or  all  places,  as  he  pleaseth,  revealing 
and  manifesting  his  glory  more  or  less,  as  it  seemeth  good  to  him. 

Of  this  omnipresence  of  God,  two  things  are  usually  inquired  after: 

1.  The  thing  itself,  or  the  demonstration  that  he  is  so  omnipresent ; 

2.  The  manner  of  it,  or  the  manifestation  and  declaring  how  he  is  so 
present     Of  this  latter,  perhaps,  sundry  things  have  been  over  curi 
ously  and  nicely  by  some  disputed,  though,  upon  a  thorough  search, 
their  disputes  may  not  appear  altogether  useless.     The  schoolmen's 


distinctions  of  God's  being  in  a  place  repletivd,  immensivd,  impletivd, 
superexcedenter,  conservative,  attinctivd,  manifestativd,  etc.,  have, 
some  of  them  at  least,  foundation  in  the  Scriptures  and  right  reason. 
That  which  seems  most  obnoxious  to  exception  is  their  assertion  of 
God  to  be  everywhere  present,  instar  puncti;  but  the  sense  of  that 
and  its  intendment  is,  to  express  how  God  is  not  in  a  place,  rather 
than  how  he  is.  He  is  not  in  a  place  as  quantitive  bodies,  that  have 
the  dimensions  attending  them.  Neither  could  his  presence  in 
heaven,  by  those  who  shut  him  up  there,  be  any  otherwise  conceived, 
until  they  were  relieved  by  the  rare  notions  of  Mr.  B.  concerning 
the  distinct  places  of  his  right  hand  and  left.  But  it  is  not  at  all 
about  the  manner  of  God's  presence  that  I  am  occasioned  to  speak, 
but  only  of  the  thing  itself.  They  who  say  he  is  in  heaven  only 
speak  as  to  the  thing,  and  not  as  to  the  manner  of  it.  When  we 
say  he  is  everywhere,  our  assertion  is  also  to  be  interpreted  as  to 
that  only ;  the  manner  of  his  presence  being  purely  of  a  philosophi 
cal  consideration,  his  presence  itself  divinely  revealed,  and  necessarily 
attending  his  divine  perfections;  yea,  it  is  an  essential  property  of 
God.  The  properties  of  God  are  either  absolute  or  relative.  The 
absolute  properties  of  God  are  such  as  may  be  considered  without 
the  supposition  of  any  thing  else  whatever,  towards  which  their 
energy  and  efficacy  should  be  exerted.  His  relative  are  such  as,  in 
their  egress  and  exercise,  respect  some  things  in  the  creatures,  though 
they  naturally  and  eternally  reside  in  God.  Of  the  first  sort  is  God's 
immensity  ;  it  is  an  absolute  property  of  his  nature  and  being.  For 
God  to  be  immense,  infinite,  unbounded,  unlimited,  is  as  necessary 
to  him  as  to  be  God ;  that  is,  it  is  of  his  essential  perfection  so  to 
be.  The  ubiquity  of  God,  or  his  presence  to  all  things  and  persons, 
is  a  relative  property  of  God  ;  for  to  say  that  God  is  present  in  and 
to  all  things  supposes  those  things  to  be.  Indeed,  the  ubiquity  of 
God  is  the  habitude  of  his  immensity  to  the  creation.  Supposing  the 
creatures,  the  world  that  is,  God  is  by  reason  of  his  immensity  in- 
distant  to  them  all ;  or  if  more  worlds  be  supposed  (as  all  things 
possible  to  the  power  of  God  without  any  absurdity  may  be  sup 
posed),  on  the  same  account  as  he  is  omnipresent  in  reference  to  the 
present  world,  he  would  be  so  to  them  and  all  that  is  in  them. 

Of  that  which  we  affirm  in  this  matter  this  is  the  sum:  God, 
who  in  his  own  being  and  essence  is  infinite  and  immense,  is,  by 
reason  thereof,  present  in  and  to  the  whole  creation  equally, — not  by 
a  diffusion  of  his  substance,  or  mixture  with  other  things,  heaven  or 
earth,  in  or  upon  them,  but  by  an  inconceivable  indistancy  of  essence 
to  all  things, — though  he  exert  his  power  and  manifest  his  glory  in 
one  place  more  than  another ;  as  in  heaven,  in  Zion,  at  the  ark,  etc. 

That  this  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  in  the  places  before 
mentioned  needs  no  great  pains  to  evince.  In  that,  1  Kings  viii. 


27,  the  design  of  Solomon  in  the  words  gives  light  to  the  substance 
of  what  he  asserted.  He  had  newly,  with  labour,  cost,  charge,  and 
wisdom,  none  of  them  to  be  paralleled  in  the  world,  built  a  temple 
for  the  worship  of  God.  The  house  being  large  and  exceedingly 
glorious,  the  apprehensions  of  all  the  nations  round  about  (that 
looked  on,  and  considered  the  work  he  had  in  hand)  concerning  the 
nature  and  being  of  God  being  gross,  carnal,  and  superstitious,  them 
selves  answerably  worshipping  those  who  by  nature  were  not  God, 
and  his  own  people  of  Israel  exceedingly  prone  to  the  same  abomi 
nation,  lest  any  should  suppose  that  he  had  thoughts  of  including 
the  essence  of  God  in  the  house  that  he  had  built,  he  clears  himself 
in  this  confession  of  his  faith  from  all  such  imaginations,  affirming 
that  though  indeed  God  would  dwell  on  the  earth,-yet  he  was  so  far 
from  being  limited  unto  or  circumscribed  in  the  house  that  he  had 
built,  that  "  the  heaven  and  the  heaven  of  heavens,"  any  space  what 
ever  that  could  be  imagined,  the  highest  heaven,  could  not,  "  cannot 
contain  him;"  so  far  is  he  from  having  a  certain  place  in  heaven 
where  he  should  reside,  in  distinction  from  other  places  where  he  is 
not.  "He  is  God  in  heaven  above,  and  in  earth  beneath,"  Josh.  ii.  11. 
That  which  the  temple  of  God  was  built  unto,  that  "  the  heaven  and 
the  heaven  of  heavens  cannot  contain."  Now,  the  temple  was  built 
to  the  being  of  God,  to  God  as  God:  so  Acts  vii.  47,  "  But  Solomon 
built  him  an  house  ;"  him, — that  is,  the  Most  High, — "  who  dwelleth 
not,"  is  not  circumscribed,  "  in  temples  made  with  hands,"  verse  48. 

That  of  Ps.  cxxxix.  7-10  is  no  less  evident ;  the  presence  or  face 
of  God  is  expressly  affirmed  to  be  everywhere  :  "  Whither  shall  I  go 
from  thy  face  ?  If  I  ascend  up  into  heaven,  thou  art  there  :  if  I  go 
into  hell,  behold,  thou  art  there."  As  God  is  affirmed  to  be  in  hea 
ven,  so  everywhere  else  ;  now  that  he  is  in  heaven,  in  respect  of  his 
essence  and  being,  is  not  questioned. 

Neither  can  that  of  the  prophet  Isaiah,  chap.  Ixvi.  1,  be  otherwise 
understood  but  as  an  ascribing  of  an  ubiquity  to  God,  and  a  presence  in 
heaven  and  earth :  "  Heaven  is  my  throne,  and  the  earth  is  my  foot 
stool."  The  words  are  metaphorical,  and  in  that  way  expressive  of 
the  presence  of  a  person ;  and  so  God  is  present  in  heaven  and  earth. 
That  the  earth  should  be  his  footstool,  and  yet  himself  be  so  incon 
ceivably  distant  from  it  as  the  heaven  is  from  the  earth  (an  expres 
sion  chosen  by  himself  to  set  out  the  greatest  distance  imaginable), 
is  not  readily  to  be  apprehended.  "  He  is  not  far  from  every  one  of 
us:  for  in  him  we  live,  and  move,  and  have  our  being,"  Acts  xvii. 
27,  28. 

The  testimony  which  God  gives  to  this  his  perfection  in  Jer.  xxiii. 
23,  24,  is  not  to  be  avoided;  more  than  what  is  here  spoken  by  God 
himself  as  to  his  omnipresence  we  cannot,  we  desire  not  to  speak : 
"Can  any  hide  himself  in  secret  places,  that  I  shall  not  see  him? 


saith  the  LORD.  Do  not  I  fill  heaven  and  earth?  saith  the  LORD." 
Still  where  mention  is  made  of  the  presence  of  God,  there  heaven 
and  earth  (which  two  are  comprehensive  of,  and  usually  put  for 
the  whole  creation)  are  mentioned :  and  herein  he  is  neither  to  be 
thought  afar  off  nor  near,  being  equally  present  everywhere,  in  the 
hidden  places  as  in  heaven;  that  is,  he  is  not  distant  from  any  thing 
or  place,  though  he  take  up  no  place,  but  is  nigh  all  things,  by  the 
infiniteness  and  existence  of  his  being. 

From  what  is  also  known  of  the  nature  of  God,  his  attributes  and 
perfections,  the  truth  delivered  may  be  farther  argued  and  confirmed ; 

1.  God  is  absolutely  perfect ;  whatever  is  of  perfection  is  to  be  as 
cribed  to  him :  otherwise  he  could  neither  be  absolutely  self-sufficient, 
all-sufficient,  nor  eternally  blessed  in  himself.  He  is  absolutely  perfect, 
inasmuch  as  no  perfection  is  wanting  to  him,  and  comparatively  above 
all  that  we  can  conceive  or  apprehend  of  perfection.  If,  then,  ubiquity 
or  omnipresence  be  a  perfection,  it  no  less  necessarily  belongs  to  God 
than  it  does  to  be  perfectly  good  and  blessed.  That  this  is  a  perfection 
is  evident  from  its  contrary.     To  be  limited,  to  be  circumscribed,  is 
an  imperfection,  and  argues  weakness.    We  commonly  say,  we  would 
do  such  a  thing  in  such  a  place  could  we  be  present  unto  it,  and  are 
grieved  and  troubled  that  we  cannot  be  so.     That  it  should  be  so  is  an 
imperfection  attending  the  limitedness  of  our  natures.     Unless  we 
will  ascribe  the  like  to  God,  his  omnipresence  is  to  be  acknowledged. 
If  every  perfection,  then,  be  in  God  (and  if  every  perfection  be  not  in 
any,  he  is  not  God),  this  is  not  to  be -denied  to  him. 

2.  Again ;  if  God  be  now  "in  a  certain  place  in  heaven,"  I  ask  where 
he  was  before  these  heavens  were  made  ?     These  heavens  have  not 
always  been.     God  was  then  where  there  was  nothing  but  God, — no 
heaven,  no  earth,  no  place.     In  what  place  was  God  when  there  was 
no  place  ?  When  the  heavens  were  made,  did  he  cease  this  manner  of 
being  in  himself,  existing  in  his  own  infinite  essence,  and  remove  into 
the  new  place  made  for  him  ?     Or  is  not  God's  removal  out  of  his 
existence  in  himself  into  a  certain  place  a  blasphemous  imagination  ? 
"  Ante  omnia  Deus  erat  solus  ipse  sibi,  et  locus,  et  mundus,  et  omnia," 
Tertul.     Is  this  change  of  place  and  posture  to  be  ascribed  to  God  ? 
Moreover,  if  God  be  now  only  in  a  certain  place  of  the  heavens,  if  he 
should  destroy  the  heavens  and  that  place,  where  would  he  then  be  ? 
in  what  place?     Should  he  cease  to  be  in  the  place  wherein  he  is, 
and  begin  to  be  in,  to  take  up,  and  possess  another  ?     And  are  such 
apprehensions  suited  to  the  infinite  perfections  of  God?     Yea,  may 
we  not  suppose  that  he  may  create  another  heaven?  can  he  not  do 
it?     How  should  he  be  present  there  ?  or  must  it  stand  empty?  or 
must  he  move  himself  thither?  or  make  himself  bigger  than  he  was; 
to  fill  that  heaven  also? 


3.  The  omnipresence  of  God  is  grounded  on  the  infiniteness  of  his 
essence.    If  God  be  infinite,  he  is  omnipresent.    Suppose  him  infinite, 
and  then  suppose  there  is  any  thing  besides  himself,  and  his  presence 
with  that  thing,  wherever  it  be,  doth  necessarily  follow ;  for  if  he  be 
so  bounded  as  to  be  in  his  essence  distant  from  any  thing,  he  is  not 
infinite.     To  say  God  is  not  infinite  in  his  essence  denies  him  to  be 
infinite  or  unlimited  in  any  of  his  perfections  or  properties;  and  there 
fore,  indeed,  upon  the  matter  Socinus  denies  God's  power  to  be  in 
finite,  because  he  will  not  grant  his  essence  to  be,  Cat.  chap.  xi. 
part  1.     That  which  is  absolutely  infinite  cannot  have  its  residence 
in  that  which  is  finite  and  limited,  so  that  if  the  essence  of  God  be 
not  immense  and  infinite,  his  power,  goodness,  etc.,  are  also  bounded 
and  limited  ;  so  that  there  are,  or  may  be,  many  things  which  in  their 
own  natures  are  capable  of  existence,  which  yet  God  cannot  do  for 
want  of  power.    How  suitable  to  the  Scriptures  and  common  notions  of 
mankind  concerning  the  nature  of  God  this  is  will  be  easily  known.  It 
is  yet  thecommon  faith  of  Christians  that  God  is  a-ygp/yf  CWT-OS,  xal  avtipog. 

4.  Let  reason  (which  the  author  of  these  Catechisms  pretends  to 
advance  and  honour,  as  some  think,  above  its  due,  and  therefore  can 
not  decline  its  dictates)  judge  of  the  consequences  of  this  gross  ap 
prehension  concerning  the  confinement  of  God  to  the  heavens,  yea,  "  a 
certain  place  in  the  heavens,"  though  he  "glister"  never  so  much  "in 
glory"  there  where  he  is.     For,  (1.)  He  must  be  extended  as  a  body  is, 
that  so  he  may  fill  the  place,  and  have  parts  as  we  have,  if  he  be  cir 
cumscribed  in  a  certain  place;  which  though  our  author  thinks  no  ab 
surdity,  yet,  as  we  shall  afterward  manifest,  it  is  as  bold  an  attempt  to 
make  an  idol  of  the  living  God  as  ever  any  of  the  sons  of  men  engaged 
into.     (2.)  Then  God's  greatness  and  ours,  as  to  essence  and  substance, 
differ  only  gradually,  but  are  still  of  the  same  kind.     God  is  bigger 
than  a  man,  it  is  true,  but  yet  with  the  same  kind  of  greatness,  dif 
fering  from  us  as  one  man  differs  from  another.     A  man  is  in  a  cer 
tain  place  of  the  earth,  which  he  fills  and  takes  up;  and  God  is  in  a 
certain  place  of  the  heavens,  which  he  fills  and  takes  up.  Only  some 
gradual  difference  there  is,  but  how  great  or  little  that  difference  is, 
as  yet  we  are  not  taught.     (3.)  I  desire  to  know  of  Mr  B.  what  the 
throne  is  made  of  that  God  sits  on  in  the  heavens,  and  how  far  the 
glistering  of  his  glory  doth  extend,  and  whether  that  glistering  of 
glory  doth  naturally  attend  his  person  as  beams  do  the  sun,  or  shining 
doth  fire,  or  can  he  make  it  more  or  less  as  he  pleaseth?      (4.) 
Doth  God  fill  the  whole  heavens,  or  only  some  part  of  them?     If  the 
whole,  being  of  such  substance  as  is  imagined,  what  room  will  there 
be  in  heaven  for  any  body  else  ?    Can  a  lesser  place  hold  him  ?  or  could 
he  fill  a  greater?   If  not,  how  came  the  heavens  [to  be]  so  fit  for  him  ? 
Or  could  he  not  have  made  them  of  other  dimensions,  less  or  greater? 
If  he  be  only  in  a  part  of  heaven,  as  is  more  than  insinuated  in  the 


expression  that  he  is  "  in  a  certain  place  in  the  heavens,"  I  ask  why  he 
dwells  in  one  part  of  the  heavens  rather  than  another?1  or  whether  he 
ever  removes  or  takes  a  journey,  as  Elijah  speaks  of  Baal,  1  Kings 
xviii.  27,  or  is  eternally,  as  limited  in,  so  confined  unto,  the  certain  place 
wherein  he  is?  Again ;  how  doth  he  work  out  those  effects  of  almighty 
power  which  are  at  so  great  a  distance  from  him  as  the  earth  is  from 
the  heavens,  which  cannot  be  effected  by  the  intervenience  of  any 
created  power,  as  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  eta  The  power  of  God 
doubtless  follows  his  essence,  and  what  this  extends  not  to  that  can 
not  reach.  But  of  that  which  might  be  spoken  to  vindicate  the  in 
finitely  glorious  being  of  God  from  the  reproach  which  his  own  word 
is  wrested  to  cast  upon  him,  this  that  hath  been  spoken  is  somewhat 
that  to  my  present  thoughts  doth  occur. 

I  suppose  that  Mr  B.  knows  that  in  this  his  circumscription  of  God 
to  a  certain  place,  he  transgresses  against  the  common  consent  of  man 
kind;  if  not,  a  few  instances  of  several  sorts  may,  I  hope,  suffice  for 
his  conviction.  I  shall  promiscuously  propose  them,  as  they  lie  at 
hand  or  occur  to  my  remembrance.  For  the  Jews,  Philo  gives  their 
judgment  "Hear/'  saith  he,  "of  the  wise  God  that  which  is  most  true, 
that  God  is  in  no  place,  for  he  is  not  contained,  but  containeth  all. 
That  which  is  made  is  in  a  place,  for  it  must  be  contained  and  not 
contain/'8  And  it  is  the  observation  of  another  of  them,  that  so  often 
as  QiP9,  a  place,  is  said  of  God,  the  exaltation  of  his  immense  and  in 
comparable  essence  (as  to  its  manifestation)  is  to  be  understood. 3  And 
the  learned  Buxtorf  tells  us  that  when  that  word  is  used  of  God,  it  is 
by  an  antiphrasis,  to  signify  that  he  is  infinite,  illocal,  received  in  no 
place,  giving  place  to  all.4  That  known  saying  of  Empedocles  passed 
among  the  heathen,  "Deus  est  circulus,  cujus  centrum  ubique,  cir- 
cumferentia  nusquam ;"  and  of  Seneca,  "  Turn  which  way  thou  wilt, 
thou  shalt  see  God  meeting  thee.  Nothing  is  empty  of  him :  he  fills 
his  own  work/'5  "All  things  are  full  of  God,"  says  the  poet;6  and 
another  of  them : — 

"  Estque  Dei  sedes  nisi  teroe,  et  pontus,  et  aer, 
Est  coelum,  et  versus  superos,  quid  quaerimus  ultra : 
Jupiter  est  quodcunque  vides,  quocunque  moveris."  7 

Of  this  presence  of  God,  I  say,  with  and  unto  all  things,  of  the  in 
finity  of  his  essence,  the  very  heathens  themselves,  by  the  light  of 

1  "  Si  spatium  vacat  super  caput  Creatoris,  et  si  Deus  ipse  in  loco  est,  erit  jam  locus 
ille  major  et  Deo  et  mundo ;  nihil  enim  non  majus  est  id  quod  capit,  illo  quod  capitur." 
— Tertul.  ad  Max.  lib.  i.  cap.  xv. 

8  "Axouffav  leetpa.  TOU  iviff'TUfi'tvov  &tav  frifn  K^tthyrxTnv,  on  «  6»ay  »v%i  vew  tv  yap  trtpii- 
Xirai,  aXXa  irtpi'i%ii  ra  <ra».  To  §j  ytvofttvov  It  rotrtu-  vrtpii%sffl!ui  yaf  aura,  a.X\a.  oil  ftfi'i^iti 
d.ia.yxtt.7n. — Philo,  lib.  ii.  Alleg.  Leg. 

3  Maimon.  Mor.  Nevoch.  p.  1,  cap.  viii.  *  Buxtorf  in  Lexic.:  verbo  cnptt. 

4  "  Quocumque  te  flexeris,  ibi  ilium  (Deum)  videbis  occurrentem  tibi.    Nihil  ab  illo 
vacat :  opus  suum  ipse  implet." — Senec.  de  Benef.  lib.  iv.  cap.  viii. 

•  "  Jovis  omnia  plena,'' — Virg.  Eel.  iii.  60.  7  Lucan,  lib.  iii. 

VOL.  XII.  7 


nature  (which  Mr  B.  herein  opposes),  had  a  knowledge.  Hence  did 
some  of  them  term  him  xos/jjoffoibs  votf,  "  a  mind  framing  the  uni 
verse,"  and  affirmed  him  to  be  infinite.  "  Primus  omnium  rerum 
descriptionem  et  modum,  mentis  infinitce  vi  et  ratione  designari,  et 
confici  voluit,"  says  Cicero  of  Anaxagoras,  Tull.  de  Nat.  Deor.  lib.  i.1'1; 
— "  All  things  are  disposed  of  by  the  virtue  of  one  infinite  mind." 
And  Plutarch,  expressing  the  same  thing,  says  he  is  vovg  xadapof, 
xal  axparog  l^i^iy^evos  iraai, — "  a  pure  and  sincere  mind,  mixing 
itself,  and  mixed"  (so  they  expressed  the  presence  of  the  infinite 
mind)  "  with  all  things."  So  Virgil,  "  Jovis  omnia  plena," — "  All 
things  are  full  of  God,"  (for  God  they  intended  by  that  name,  Acts 
xvii.  25,  28,  29 ;  and  says  Lactantius,  "  Convicti  de  uno  Deo,  cum 
id  negare  non  possunt,  ipsum  se  colere,  affirmant,  verum  hoc  sibi 
placere,  ut  Jupiter  nominetur,"  lib.  i.  cap.  ii.);  which,  as  Servius  on 
the  place  observes,  he  had  taken  from  Aratus,  whose  words  are: — 

'Ex  ^10;  df^taftifSa,  roi  ev&i  <ro<r  £*$pis  leapt* 
"Apprirav"  [turriti  S«  S/oy  •jea.fa.t  filv  nyuia.}, 
Hairai  V  avfyuvfui  ayapal,  fiirrri  Ss  SaZ.arffa, 
Kai  Xipiiif,  WVTJI  §f  $10;  xi%pvftifa  travrtf, 

— giving  a  full  description,  in  his  way,  of  the  omnipresence  and 
ubiquity  of  God.  The  same  Virgil,  from  the  Platonics,  tells  us  in 
another  place: — 

"  Spiritus  intus  alit,  totamque  infusa  per  artus 
Mens  agitat  molem." — Mn.  vi.  726. 

And  much  more  of  this  kind  might  easily  be  added.  The  learned 
know  where  to  find  more  for  their  satisfaction;  and  for  those  that  are 
otherwise,  the  clear  texts  of  Scripture  cited  before  may  suffice. 

Of  those,  on  the  other  hand,  who  have,  no  less  grossly  and  carnally 
than  he  of  whom  we  speak,  imagined  a  diffusion  of  the  substance  of 
God  through  the  whole  creation,  and  a  mixture  of  it  with  the  crea 
tures,1  so  as  to  animate  and  enliven  them  in  their  several  forms, 
making  God  an  essential  part  of  each  creature,3  or  dream  of  an  as 
sumption  of  creatures  into  an  unity  of  essence  with  God,  I  am  not 
now  to  speak 


Of  the  shape  and  bodily  visible  figure  of  God. 
MR  BIDDLE'S  question : — 

Is  God  in  the  Scripture  said  to  have  any  likeness,  similitude,  person,  shape? 
The  proposition  which  he  would  have  to  be  the  conclusion  of  the 
answers  to  these  questions  is  this,  That,  according  to  the  doctrine  of 

1  Vide  Beza,  Ep.  ad  Philip  Marnix. 

»  Vide  Virg.  Mn.  lib.  vi.  724:  "  Principio  cselum,"  etc.,  ex  Platonicis. 


the  Scriptures,  God  is  a  person  shaped  like  a  man ; — a  conclusion 
so  grossly  absurd  that  it  is  refused  as  ridiculous  by  Tully,  a  heathen, 
in  the  person  of  Cotta  (De  Nat.  Deor.  lib.  i.  6),  against  Velleius  the 
Epicurean,  the  Epicureans  only  amongst  the  philosophers  being  so 
sottish  as  to  admit  that  conceit.  And  Mr  B.,  charging  that  upon  the 
Scripture  which  hath  been  renounced  by  all  the  heathens  who  set 
themselves  studiously  to  follow  the  light  of  nature,  and,  by  a  strict 
inquiry,  to  search  out  the  nature  and  attributes  of  God,  principally 
attending  to  that  safe  rule  of  ascribing  nothing  to  him  that  eminently 
included  imperfection,1  hath  manifested  his  pretext  of  mere  Christi 
anity  to  be  little  better  than  a  cover  for  downright  atheism,  or  at 
best  of  most  vile  and  unworthy  thoughts  of  the  Divine  Being.  And 
here  also  doth  Mr  B.  forsake  his  masters.3  Some  of  them  have  had 
more  reverence  of  the  Deity,  and  express  themselves  accordingly,  in 
express  opposition  to  this  gross  figment. 

According  to  the  method  I  proceeded  in,  in  consideration  of  the 
precedent  questions,  shall  I  deal  with  this,  and  first  consider  briefly 
the  scriptures  produced  to  make  good  this  monstrous,  horrid  assertion. 
The  places  urged  and  insisted  on  of  old  by  the  Anthropomorphites3 
were  such  as  partly  ascribed  a  shape  in  general  to  God,  partly  such 
as  mention  the  parts  and  members  of  God  in  that  shape,  his  eyes,  his 
arms,  his  hands,  etc.;  from  all  which  they  looked  on  him  as  an  old 
man  sitting  in  heaven  on  a  throne, — a  conception  that  Mr  B.  is  no 
stranger  to.  The  places  of  the  first  sort  are  here  only  insisted  on  by 
Mr  B.,  and  the  attribution  of  a  "  likeness,  image,  similitude,  person, 
and  shape"  unto  God,  is  his  warrant  to  conclude  that  he  hath  a 
visible,  corporeal  image  and  shape  like  that  of  a  man ;  which  is  the 
plain  intendment  of  his  question.  Now,  if  the  image,  likeness,  or 
similitude,  attributed  to  God  as  above,  do  no  way,  neither  in  the 
sum  of  the  words  themselves  nor  by  the  intendment  of  the  places 
where  they  are  used,  in  the  least  ascribe  or  intimate  that  there  is 
any  such  corporeal,  visible  shape  in  God  as  he  would  insinuate,  but 
are  properly  expressive  of  some  other  thing  that  properly  belongs  to 
him,  I  suppose  it  will  not  be  questioned  but  that  a  little  matter  will 
prevail  with  a  person  desiring  to  emerge  in  the  world  by  novelties, 
and  on  that  account  casting  off  that  reverence  of  God  which  the  first 
and  most  common  notions  of  mankind  would  instruct  him  into,  to 

1  "  Sine  corpora  ullo  Deum  vult  esse,  ut  Graeci  dicunt  K<n»ftart»." — Tull.  de  Nat. 
Deor.  lib.  i.  12,  de  Platone.  "  Mens  soluta  qusedam  et  libera,  segregata  ab  omni  con- 
cretione  mortal!." — Id.,  Tusc.  Quaest.  lib.  i.  27. 

3  "  Ex  his  autem  intelligitur,  membra  humani  corporis,  quse  Deo  in  sacris  literia 
ascribuntur,  uti  et  partes  quaedam  aliarum  animantium,  quales  sunt  alae,  non  nisi  im- 
propriS  Deo  tribui ;  siquidem  a  spiritus  natura  prorsus  abhorrent.  Tribuuntur  autem 
Deo  per  metaphoram  cum  metonymia  conjunctam.  Nempe  quia  facultates  vel  actiones 
Deo  conveniunt,  illarum  similes,  quse  membris  illis,  aut  insunt,  aut  per  ea  exercentur." 
— Crell.  de  Deo,  sive  de  Vera  Relig.  lib.  i.  cap.  xv.  p.  107. 

3  Epiph.  torn,  i.  lib.  iii.  Haeres.  Ixx. ;  Theod. ,  lib.  iv.  cap.  x. 


make  bold  with  God  and  the  Scripture  for  his  own  ends  and  pur 

1.  I  say  then,  first,  in  general,  if  the  Scripture  may  be  allowed  to 
expound  itself,  it  gives  us  a  fair  and  clear  account  of  its  own  intend- 
ment  in  mentioning  the  image  and  shape  of  God,  which  man  was 
created  in,  and  owns  it  to  be  his  righteousness  and  holiness ;  in  a 
state  whereof,  agreeable  to  the  condition  of  such  a  creature,  man  be 
ing  created  is  said  to  be  created  in  the  image  and  likeness  of  God, — 
in  a  kind  of  resemblance  unto  that  holiness  and  righteousness  which 
are  in  him,  Eph.  iv.  23,  24,  etc.     What  can  hence  be  concluded  for  a 
corporeal  image  or  shape  to  be  ascribed  unto  God  is  too  easily  dis 
cernible.     From  a  likeness  in  some  virtue  or  property  to  conclude 
to  a  likeness  in  a  bodily  shape,  may  well  befit  a  man  that  cares  not 
what  he  says,  so  he  may  speak  to  the  derogation  of  the  glory  of  God. 

2.  For  the  particular  places  by  Mr  B.  insisted  on,  and  the  words 
used  in  them,  which  he  lays  the  stress  of  this  proposition  upon  :  the 
first  two  words  are  J"1^  and  o?X-}  both  of  which  are  used  in  Gen.  i.  26. 
The  word  rno"!  is  used  Gen.  v.  1,  and  opt,  Gen.  ix.  6 ;  but  neither  of 
these  words  doth,  in  its  genuine  signification,  imply  any  corporeity  or 
figure.   The  most  learned  of  all  the  rabbins,  and  most  critically  skilful 
in  their  language,  hath  observed  and  proved  that  the  proper  Hebrew 
word  for  that  kind  of  outward  form  or  similitude  is  ">Nn  j  and  if  these 
be  ever  so  used,  it  is  in  a  metaphorical  and  borrowed  sense,  or  at  least 
there  is  an  amphiboly  in  the  words,  the  Scripture  sometimes  using 
them  in  such  subjects  where  this  gross,  corporeal  sense  cannot  pos 
sibly  be  admitted:  vnrrmn  niBl.3, — "  Like  the  poison  of  a  serpent," 
Ps.  Iviii.  4.     There  is,  indeed,  some  imaginable,  or  rather  rational, 
resemblance  in  the  properties  there  mentioned,  but  no  corporeal 
similitude.     Vide  Ezek.  i.  28,  and  xxiii.  14  (to  which  may  be  added 
many  more  places),  where  if  ^^  shall  be  interpreted  of  a  bodily 
similitude,  it  will  afford  no  tolerable  sense.     The  same  likewise  may 
be  said  of  o?$.    It  is  used  in  the  Hebrew  for  the  essential  form  rather 
than  the  figure  or  shape ;  and  being  spoken  of  men,  signifies  rather 
their  souls  than  bodies.     So  it  is  used,  Ps.  Ixxiii.  20 ;  which  is  better 
translated,  "  Thou  shalt  despise  their  soul,"  than  their  "  image." 
So  where  it.  is  said,  Ps.  xxxix.  6,  "  Every  man  walketh  in  a  vain 
show"  (the  same  word  again),  however  it  ought  to  be  interpreted, 
it  cannot  be  understood  of  a  corporeal  similitude.   So  that  these  testi 
monies  are  not  at  all  to  his  purpose.     What,  indeed,  is  the  image  of 
God,  or  that  likeness  to  him  wherein  man  was  made,  I  have  partly 
mentioned  already,  and  shall  farther  manifest,  chap,  vl ;  and  if  this 
be  not  a  bodily  shape,  it  will  be  confessed  that  nothing  can  here  be 
concluded  for  the  attribution  of  a  shape  to  God ;  and  hereof  an  ac 
count  will  be  given  in  its  proper  place. 

The  sum  of  Mr  B/s  reasoning  from  these  places  is:  "  God,  in  the 


creation  of  the  lower  world  and  the  inhabitancy  thereof,  making 
man,  enduing  him  with  a  mind  and  soul  capable  of  knowing  him, 
serving  him,  yielding  him  voluntary  and  rational  obedience ;  creating 
him  in  a  condition  of  holiness  and  righteousness,  in  a  resemblance 
to  those  blessed  perfections  in  himself,  requiring  still  of  him  to  be 
holy  as  he  is  holy,  to  continue  and  abide  in  that  likeness  of  his;  giv 
ing  him  in  that  estate  dominion  over  the  rest  of  his  works  here 
below, — is  said  to  create  him  in  his  own  image  and  likeness,  he  being 
the  sovereign  lord  over  all  his  creatures,  infinitely  wise,  knowing, 
just,  and  holy:  therefore  he  hath  a  bodily  shape  and  image,  and  is 
therein  like  unto  a  man."  "  Quod  erat  demonstrandum/' 

His  next  quotation  is  from  Num.  xii.  7,  8,  where  it  is  said  of 
Moses  that  he  shall  behold  the  "similitude  of  the  LORD."  The  word 
is  ruiDJji  j  which,  as  it  is  sometimes  taken  for  a  corporeal  similitude, 
so  it  is  at  other  times  for  that  idea  whereby  things  are  intellectually 
represented.  In  the  former  sense  is  it  frequently  denied  of  God ; 
as  Deut.  iv.  15,  "  Ye  saw  no  manner  of  similitude,"  etc.  But  it  is 
frequently  taken,  in  the  other  sense,  for  that  object,  or  rather  impres 
sion,  whereby  our  intellectual  apprehension  is  made;  as  in  Job  iv.  16, 
"  An  image  was  before  mine  eyes,"  namely,  in  his  dream ;  which  is 
not  any  corporeal  shape,  but  that  idea  or  objective  representation 
whereby  the  mind  of  man  understands  its  object, — that  which  is  in 
the  schools  commonly  called  phantasm,  or  else  an  intellectual  spe 
cies,  about  the  notion  of  which  it  is  here  improper  to  contend.  It  is 
manifest  that,  in  the  place  here  alleged,  it  is  put  to  signify  the  clear 
manifestation  of  God's  presence  to  Moses,  with  some  such  glorious 
appearance  thereof  as  he  was  pleased  to  represent  unto  him;  there 
fore,  doubtless,  God  hath  a  bodily  shape. 

His  next  quotation  is  taken  from  James  iii.  9,  "  Made  after  the 
similitude  of  God," — Tw$,  xad'  o^oiuatv  Qtou  ytywdras.  Certainly  Mr 
B.  cannot  be  so  ignorant  as  to  think  the  word  o/toluaii  to  include  in 
its  signification  a  corporeal  similitude.  The  word  is  of  as  large  an 
extent  as  "similitude"  in  Latin,  arid  takes  in  as  well  those  abstracted 
analogies  which  the  understanding  of  man  finds  out,  in  comparing 
several  objects  together,  as  those  other  outward  conformities  of  figure 
and  shape  which  are  the  objects  of  our  carnal  eyes.  It  is  the  word 
by  which  the  LXX.  use  to  render  the  word  rnEn.;  Of  which  we 
have  spoken  before.  And  the  examples  are  innumerable  in  the 
Septuagint  translation,  and  in  authors  of  all  sorts  written  in  the 
Greek  language,  where  that  word  is  taken  at  large,  and  cannot  sig 
nify  a  corporeal  similitude;  so  that  it  is  vain  to  insist  upon  particulars. 
And  this  also  belongs  to  the  same  head  of  inquiry  with  the  former, 
— namely,  what  likeness  of  God  it  was  that  man  was  created  in, 
whether  of  eyes,  ears,  nose,  etc.,  or  of  holiness,  etc. 

His  next  allegation  is  from  Job  xiii.  7,  8,  "  Will  ye  accept  his 


person?"  I^L!,  irpotuxov  aurou,  —  an  allegation  so  frivolous  that  to  stand 
to  answer  it  studiously  would  be  ridiculous.  1.  It  is  an  interroga 
tion,  and  doth  not  assert  any  thing.  2.  The  thing  spoken  against  is 
vpoffuKoXqtya,,  which  hath  in  it  no  regard  to  shape  or  corporeal  per 
sonality,  but  to  the  partiality  which  is  used  in  preferring  one  before 
another  in  justice.  3.  The  word  mentioned,  with  its  derivatives,  is 
used  in  as  great  or  greater  variety  of  metaphorical  translations  than 
any  other  Hebrew  word,  and  is  by  no  means  determined  to  be  a 
signification  of  that  bulky  substance  which,  with  the  soul,  concurs 
to  make  up  the  person  of  man.  It  is  so  used,  Gen.  xxxiil  18,  M?"^, 
—  "Jacob  pitched  his  tent  before"  (or  "  in  the  face  of")  "  the  city." 
It  is  confessed  that  it  is  very  frequently  translated  vpoffuKov  by  the 
LXX.,  as  it  is  very  variously  translated  by  them;  sometimes  6  opdaX- 
t*,6s.  See  Jer.  xxxviii.  26;  Neh.  ii.  13;  Job  xvi.  16;  Deut.  ii.  36; 
Prov.  xxvii.  23.  Besides  that,  it  is  used  in  many  other  places  for 
am,  SVUVTI,  a-^svavn,  eirdyu,  ivuviov,  and  in  many  more  senses.  So  that 
to  draw  an  argument  concerning  the  nature  of  God  from  a  word  so 
amphibological,  or  of  such  frequent  translation  in  metaphorical  speech, 
is  very  unreasonable. 

Of  what  may  be  hence  deduced  this  is  the  sum  :  "  In  every  plea 
or  contest  about  the  ways,  dispensations,  and  judgments  of  God,  that 
which  is  right,  exact,  and  according  to  the  thing  itself,  is  to  be  spoken, 
his  glory  not  standing  in  the  least  need  of  our  flattery  or  lying; 
therefore  God  is  such  a  person  as  hath  a  bodily  shape  and  similitude, 
for  there  is  no  other  person  but  what  hath  so." 

His  last  argument  is  from  John  v.  37,  "Ye  have  neither  heard 
his  voice  at  any  time,  nor  seen  his  shape,"  —  OUTS  tJdos  at/roD  iupa- 
xars.  But  it  argues  a  very  great  ignorance  in  all  philosophical 
and  accurate  writings,  to  appropriate  e78os  to  a  corporeal  shape,  it 
being  very  seldom  used,  either  in  Scripture  or  elsewhere,  in  that 
notion;  —  the  Scripture  having  used  it  where  that  sense  cannot  be 
fastened  on  it,  as  in  1  Thess.  v.  22,  'AKO  vavrbs  i/dous  irovqpou  a.'TrtyfiaSt' 
which  may  be  rendered,  "  Abstain  from  every  kind,"  or  "  every  ap 
pearance,"  but  not  from  every  shape  "  of  evil;"  and  all  other  Greek 
authors,  who  have  spoken  accurately  and  not  figuratively  of  things, 
use  it  perpetually  almost  in  one  of  these  two  senses,  and  very  seldom 
if  at  all  in  the  other. 

How  improperly,  and  with  what  little  reason,  these  places  are  in 
terpreted  of  a  corporeal  similitude  or  shape,  hath  been  showed. 
"Wherein  the  image  of  God  consists  the  apostle  shows,  as  was  de 
clared,  determining  it  to  be  in  the  intellectual  part,  not  in  the  bodily,1 
Col.  iii.  10,  'EvdusdfAsvoi  rlv  vsov  (av6pu<rov)  rov  avaxaivovpfvov  tig  twiy- 
.ar  f}x.6va  rou  Kriaavrog  auron.  The  word  here  used, 

1  Plato  said  the  same  thing  expressly,  apud  Stobseum,  Eclogae  Ethicse,  lib.  ii.  cap. 
iii  p.  163. 


is  of  a  grosser  signification  than  t78os,  which  hath  its  original  from 
the  intellectual  operation  of  the  mind;  yet  this  the  apostle  determines 
to  relate  to  the  mind  and  spiritual  excellencies,  so  that  it  cannot, 
from  the  places  he  hath  mentioned,  with  the  least  colour  of  reason, 
be  concluded  that  God  hath  a  corporeal  similitude,  likeness,  person, 
or  shape.1 

What  hath  already  been  delivered  concerning  the  nature  of  God? 
and  is  yet  necessarily  to  be  added,  will  not  permit  that  much  be  pe 
culiarly  spoken  to  this  head,  for  the  removal  of  those  imperfections 
from  him  which  necessarily  attend  that  assignation  of  a  bodily  shape 
to  him  which  is  here  aimed  at.  That  the  Ancient  of  Days  is  not 
really  one  in  the  shape  of  an  old  man,  sitting  in  heaven  on  a  throne, 
glistering  with  a  corporeal  glory,  his  hair  being  white  and  his  rai 
ment  beautiful,  is  sufficiently  evinced  from  every  property  and  per 
fection  which  in  the  Scripture  is  assigned  to  him. 

The  Holy  Ghost,  speaking  in  the  Scripture  concerning  God,  doth 
not  without  indignation  suppose  any  thing  to  be  likened  or  com 
pared  to  him.  Maimonides  hath  observed  that  these  words,  Aph, 
Ira,  etc.,  are  never  attributed  to  God  but  in  the  case  of  idolatry; 
that  never  any  idolater  was  so  silly  as  to  think  that  an  idol  of  wood, 
stone,  or  metal,  was  a  god  that  made  the  heavens  and  earth ;  but  that 
through  them  all  idolaters  intend  to  worship  God.2  Now,  to  fancy 
a  corporeity  in  God,  or  that  he  is  like  a  creature,  is  greater  and  more 
irrational  dishonour  to  him  than  idolatry.  "  To  whom  will  ye  liken 
God?  or  what  likeness  will  ye  compare  unto  him?"  Isa.  xl.  18.  "  Have 
ye  not  known?  have  ye  not  heard?  hath  it  not  been  told  you  from 
the  beginning?  have  ye  not  understood  from  the  foundations  of  the 
earth?  It  is  he  that  sitteth,"  etc.  "  To  whom  then  will  ye  liken  me,  or 
shall  I  be  equal?  saith  the  Holy  One,"  verses  21-23,  25.  Because  the 
Scripture  speaks  of  the  eyes  and  ears,  nostrils  and  arms  of  the  Lord, 
and  of  man  being  made  after  his  likeness,  if  any  one  shall  conclude 
that  he  sees,  hears,  smells,  and  hath  the  shape  of  a  man,  he  must, 
upon  the  same  reason,  conclude  that  he  hath  the  shape  of  a  lion,  of 
an  eagle,  and  is  like  a  drunken  man,  because  in  Scripture  he  is 
compared  to  them,  and  so  of  necessity  make  a  monster  of  him,  and 
worship  a  chimera.3 

Nay,  the  Scripture  plainly  interprets  itself  as  to  these  attributions 

1  eta;  natfov,ov»  t%o*  popQw. — Posidonius  apud  Stobseum;  Eclogse  Phy- 
sicae,  lib.  i.  cap.  i.  p.  2.    I  confess  Epicurus  said,  '  AvUpuvetiStT;  MU.I  ml;  6eat/j — Stobasus 
ibidem,  cap.  iii.  p.  5.     And  possibly  Mr  B.  might  borrow  his  misshapen  divinity  from 
him  and  the  Anthropomorphites ;  and  then  we  have  the  pedigree  of  his  wild  positions. 
But  the  more  sober  philosophers  (as  Stobaeus  there  tells  us)  held  otherwise  :    6tiv  ol% 
O.VTOV  aiiSt  ifaroii,  oli&i  (HTfnrov,   ovkl  ^ittfrarov,    ov$i  aXX»   nn  rupctn  ofAitov,  etc.  ;   which 

Guil.  Canterus  renders  thus,  "  Quod  nee  tangi,  nee  cerni  potest  Deus,  neque  sub  men- 
suram,  yel  terminum  cadit  aut  alicui  est  corpori  simile." 

2  Videsis  Rab.  M.  Maimonid.  de  Idolat.  sect.  2,  3,  etc.;  et  Notas  Dionysii  Vossii 

•  "  Quse  de  Deodicuntur  in  sacro  codice  attfuvovutuc.  interpretanda0""*  °-«^«ar«f.'' 


unto  God.  His  arm  is  not  an  arm  of  flesh,  2  Chron.  xxxiL  8. 
Neither  are  his  eyes  of  flesh,  neither  seeth  he  as  man  seeth,  Job 
x.  4.  Nay,  the  highest  we  can  pretend  to  (which  is  our  way  of  un 
derstanding),  though  it  hath  some  resemblance  of  him,  yet  falls  it 
infinitely  short  of  a  likeness  or  equality  with  him.  And  the  Holy 
Ghost  himself  gives  a  plain  interpretation  of  his  own  intendment  in 
such  expressions :  for  whereas,  Luke  xi.  20,  our  Saviour  says  that 
he  "with  the  finger  of  God  cast  out  devils;"  Matt,  xii.  28,  he  affirms 
that  he  did  it  "  by  the  Spirit  of  God,"  intending  the  same  thing.  It 
neither  is  nor  can  righteously  be  required  that  we  should  produce 
any  place  of  Scripture  expressly  affirming  that  God  hath  no  shape, 
nor  hands,  nor  eyes,  as  we  have,  no  more  than  it  is  that  he  is  no 
lion  or  eagle.  It  is  enough  that  there  is  that  delivered  of  him 
abundantly  which  is  altogether  inconsistent  with  any  such  shape 
as  by  Mr  B.  is  fancied,  and  that  so  eminent  a  difference  as  that  now 
mentioned  is  put  between  his  arms  and  eyes  and  ours,  as  manifests 
them  to  agree  in  some  analogy  of  the  thing  signified  by  them,  and 
not  in  an  answerableness  in  the  same  kind.  Wherefore  I  say,  that 
the  Scripture  speaking  of  God,  though  it  condescends  to  the  na 
ture  and  capacities  of  men,  and  speaks  for  the  most  part  to  the 
imagination  (farther  than  which  few  among  the  sons  of  men  were 
ever  able  to  raise  their  cogitations),  yet  hath  it  clearly  delivered  to 
us  such  attributes  of  God  as  will  not  consist  with  that  gross  notion 
which  this  man  would  put  upon  the  Godhead.  The  infinity  and  im 
mutability  of  God  do  manifestly  overthrow  the  conceit  of  a  shape 
and  form  of  God.1  Were  it  not  a  contradiction  that  a  body  should 
be  actually  infinite,  yet  such  a  body  could  not  have  a  shape,  such  a 
one  as  he  imagines.  The  shape  of  any  thing  is  the  figuration  of  it ; 
the  figuration  is  the  determination  of  its  extension  towards  several 
parts,  consisting  in  a  determined  proportion  of  them  to  each  other  ; 
that  determination  is  a  bounding  and  limiting  of  them  :  so  that  if  it 
have  a  shape,  that  will  be  limited  which  was  supposed  to  be  infinite, 
which  is  a  manifest  contradiction.  But  the  Scripture  doth  plainly 
show  that  God  is  infinite  and  immense,  not  in  magnitude  (that  were 
a  contradtction,  as  will  appear  anon)  but  in  essence.  Speaking  to  our 
fancy,  it  saith  that  "  he  is  higher  than  heaven,  deeper  than  hell," 
Job  xi.  8  ;  that  "  he  fills  heaven  and  earth,"  Jer.  xxiii.  24  ;  that  "  the 
heaven  of  heavens  cannot  contain  him,"  1  Kings  viii.  27 ;  and  it  hath 
many  [such]  expressions  to  shadow  out  the  immensity  of  God,  as  was 
manifest  in  our  consideration  of  the  last  query.  But  not  content  to 
have  yielded  thus  to  our  infirmity,  it  delivers  likewise,  in  plain  and 
literal  terms,  the  infiniteness  of  God:  "His  understanding  is  infinite," 
Pa  cxlvii.  5  ;  and  therefore  his  essence  is  necessarily  so.  This  is  a 
consequence  that  none  can  deny  who  will  consider  it  till  he  under- 
1  Vid.  D.  Barnes  in  1.  partem  Aquinatis,  qusest.  3,  art.  1,  et  Scholasticos  passim. 


stands  the  terms  of  it,  as  hath  been  declared.  Yet,  lest  any  should 
hastily  apprehend  that  the  essence  of  God  were  not  therefore  neces 
sarily  infinite,  the  Holy  Ghost  saith,  Ps.  cxlv.  3,  that  "  his  greatness 
hath  no  end,"  or  is  "  inconceivable,"  which  is  infinite  ;  for  seeing  we 
can  carry  on  our  thoughts,  by  calculation,  potentially  in  infinitum, — 
that  is,  whatever  measure  be  assigned,  we  can  continually  multiply 
it  by  greater  and  greater  numbers,  as  they  say,  in  infinitum, — it  is 
evident  that  there  is  no  greatness,  either  of  magnitude  or  essence, 
which  is  unsearchable  or  inconceivable  besides  that  which  is  actually 
infinite.  Such,  therefore,  is  the  greatness  of  God,  in  the  strict  and 
literal  meaning  of  the  Scripture ;  and  therefore,  that  he  should  have 
a  shape  implies  a  contradiction.  But  of  this  so  much  before  as  I 
presume  we  may  now  take  it  for  granted. 

Now,  this  attribute  of  infinity  doth  immediately  and  demonstra 
tively  overthrow  that  gross  conception  of  a  human  shape  we  are  in 
the  consideration  of;  and  so  it  doth,  by  consequence,  overthrow  the 
conceit  of  any  other,  though  a  spherical  shape.  Again, — 

Whatever  is  incorporeal  is  destitute  of  shape  ;  whatever  is  infinite 
is  incorporeal :  therefore,  whatever  is  infinite  is  destitute  of  shape. 

All  the  question  is  of  the  minor  proposition.  Let  us  therefore 
suppose  an  infinite  body  or  line,  and  let  it  be  bisected  ;  either  then, 
each  half  is  equal  to  the  whole,  or  less.  If  equal,  the  whole  is  equal 
to  the  part ;  if  less,  then  that  half  is  limited  within  certain  bounds, 
and  consequently  is  finite,  and  so  is  the  other  half  also  :  therefore, 
two  things  which  are  finite  shall  make  up  an  infinite ;  which  is  a 

Having,  therefore,  proved  out  of  Scripture  that  God  is  infinite, 
it  follows  also  that  he  is  incorporeal,  and  that  he  is  without  shape. 

The  former  argument  proved  him  to  be  without  such  a  shape  as 
this  catechist  would  insinuate ;  this,  that  he  is  without  any  shape  at 
all.  The  same  will  be  proved  from  the  immutability  or  impassi 
bility  of  God's  essence,  which  the  Scripture  assigns  to  him :  Mai. 
iii.  6,  "  I  am  the  LORD  ;  I  change  not."  "  The  heavens  are  the  work 
of  thy  hands.  They  shall  perish,  but  thou  endurest :  they  shall  be 
changed :  but  thou  art  the  same,"  Ps.  cii.  25,  26. 

If  he  be  immutable,  then  he  is  also  incorporeal,  and  consequently 
without  shape. 

The  former  consequence  is  manifest,  for  every  body  is  extended, 
and  consequently  is  capable  of  division,  which  is  mutation ;  where 
fore,  being  immutable,  he  hath  no  shape. 

Mr  B/s  great  plea  for  the  considering  of  his  Catechism,  and 
insisting  upon  the  same  way  of  inquiry  with  himself,  is  from  the 
success  which  himself  hath  found  in  the  discovery  of  sundry  truths, 
of  which  he  gives  an  account  in  his  book  to  the  reader.  That, 
among  the  glorious  discoveries  made  by  him,  the  particular  now 


insisted  on  is  not  to  be  reckoned,  I  presume  Mr  B.  knoweth.  For 
this  discovery  the  world  is  beholding  to  one  Audseus,  a  monk,  of 
whom  you  have  a  large  account  in  Epiphanius,  torn.  i.  lib.  iii.,  Hser. 
70  ;  as  also  in  Theodoret,  lib.  iv.  Eccles.  Hist,  cap.  x.,  who  also  gives 
us  an  account  of  the  man  and  his  conversation,  with  those  that 
followed  him.  Austin  also  acquaints  us  with  this  worthy  predecessor 
of  our  author,  De  Hser.  cap.  1.  He  that  thinks  it  worth  while  to 
know  that  we  are  not  beholding  to  Mr  B.,  but  to  this  Audseus,  for  all 
the  arguments,  whether  taken  from  the  creation  of  man  in  the  image 
of  God  or  the  attribution  of  the  parts  and  members  of  a  man  unto 
God  in  the  Scripture,  to  prove  him  to  have  a  visible  shape,  may  at 
his  leisure  consult  the  authors  above  mentioned,  who  will  not  suffer 
him  to  ascribe  the  praise  of  this  discovery  to  Mr  B/s  ingenious 
inquiries.  How  the  same  figment  was  also  entertained  by  a  com 
pany  of  stupid  monks  in  Egypt,  who,  in  pursuit  of  their  opinion, 
came  in  a  great  drove  to  Alexandria,  to  knock  Theophilus  the  bishop 
on  the  head,  who  had  spoken  against  them,  and  how  that  crafty 
companion  deluded  them  with  an  ambiguity  of  expression,  with  what 
learned  stirs  ensued  thereon,  we  have  a  full  relation  in  Socrat.  Eccles. 
Hist.  lib.  vi.  cap.  vii.1 

As  this  madness  of  brain-sick  men  was  always  rejected  by  all  per 
sons  of  sobriety  professing  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ,  so  was  it  never 
embraced  by  the  Jews,  or  the  wiser  sort  of  heathens,  who  retained 
any  impression  of  those  common  notions  of  God  which  remain  in 
the  hearts  of  men.2  The  Jews  to  this  day  do  solemnly  confess,  in 
their  public  worship,  that  God  is  not  corporeal,  that  he  hath  no  cor-  , 
poreal  propriety,  and  therefore  can  nothing  be  compared  with  him.  So 
one  of  the  most  learned  of  them  of  old:  OUTS  yap  ai/dpuvopoppog  6  Qtbg, 
OIITS  Ssotidig  avQpuffivov  aupa,  Phil,  de  Opificio  Mundi  ;  —  "  Neither  hath 
God  a  human  form,  nor  does  a  human  body  resemble  him."  And  in 
Sacrifi.  Abel.  :  O-lds  rd  osa  dvdpuffoig,  sir!  Qtov  xvpioXoysTrai,  xard^priffig  bt 
wopdruv  sffTi  wapqyopouffa  rqv  riptTtpav  dff6si/tiav'  —  "  Neither  are  those 
things  which  are  in  us  spoken  properly  of  God,  but  there  is  an  abuse 
of  names  therein,  relieving  our  weakness." 

Likewise  the  heathens,  who  termed  God  vow,  and  -^/{j^uffiv  and 
<!rveZ[j,a,  and  dwapowoiov  or,  had  the  same  apprehensions  of 
him.  Thus  discourses  Mercurius  ad  Tatium,  in  Stobseus,  serm.  78  : 
Qsbv  ftev  voqaai  ^aXfTrlv,  ppdffat  8s  ddvvarov'  rb  yap  dffuparov  ffu/j,a,n 
crt^vai  ddwarov'  xai  TO  rsXsiov  rSi  drtXit'  xaraXa&cdut  ou  dvvuroV  xal  rb 
dtdiov  rSi  o'kiyoy^povi^t  avyytvsadai,  ftvSKoXov'  o  /*£?  yap  aii  fffn,  rb  &s  irap'sp- 
yira.i'  xai  rb  [itv  a\riQtid  ian,  rb  &i  v<rb  pavraff/ag  ffxidfsrar  rb  de  dadsvs- 
orspov  rov  Iff^vporspov,  xai  rb  sXarrov  rou  xptlrrovog  dissrqxt  roeovrov,  Sffov  rb 

1  OVTUS  ufiMi  £/?«y  us  Qiou  •xuHruirti.  —  Sozom.  Hist.  Eccles.  lib.  viii.  cap.  xi. 
»Minut.  Felix,  in  Octav.  Lactan.  de  Vera  Sap.  Mutius  Pansa  Pianensis  de  Osculo 
Ethiiicce  et  Christianas  Theol.  c.  25  ;  Origen.  in  Gen.  Horn.  3  ;  Aug.  1.  83,  qusest.  22. 


rou  Sslov'  rtdi  fjAei\  rouruv  didffraffig,  dftavpo?'  rqv  rou  xa\ou 
o/j  yap  rci  eu&ara  Ssara,  yXurry  ds  rot,,  \sxrd,  rb  &a 
xa!  a<pavi$,  xa!  aff^rjf^driffrov,  xa!  {tyre  e!~  vXqg  vnoxsiftsvov,  ivb 
ruv  ^furiftn  ahMjfftw  xaraXqpOrjvai  ou  duvarai.  'Evvoou/^ai  tS  rdr  ivvoov- 
pai,  o  i^siTTsfv  oti  duvarbv,  rovro  tariv  6  ©EOJ.  And  Calicratides  apud  Stob., 
Serm.  83  :  Tb  8s  sv  sffriv  apiarov  avrbs,  S-Trsp  effri  xarrav  tvvoiav,  ^uov 
ovpdviov,  a<p&aprov,  ap^d  n  xai  atria,  rag  ruv  SXuv  diaxoffftdffiog. 

Of  the  like  import  is  that  distich  of  Xenophanes  in  Clemens 
Alexan.,  Strom.  5:  — 

E/;  6toj  it  Tl  S-loTffi  xa,}  KV^feafoiffi  ft'fyiffTaf 
&UTI  Sifia;  SvvriiTffiv  Of&oiios,  ou$i  vovfta. 

"  There  is  one  great  God  among  gods  and  men, 
Who  is  like  to  mortals  neither  as  to  body  nor  mind." 

Whereunto  answers  that  in  Cato  :  — 

"  Si  Deus  est  animus  nobis  nt  carmina  dicunt,"  etc. 
And  -^schylus,  in  the  same  place  of  Clemens,  Strom.  5  :  — 

\aps7ri  B'vr/Teav  TOV  &ia>  xai  firi  $oxli 
"Oftoiov  HUTU  ffufxixov  xa0io'<ravai. 

"  Separate  God  from  mortals,  and  think  not  thyself,  of  flesh,  like 

And  Posidonius  plainly  in  Stobseus  as  above  :  *O  ®e6$  Icn  w&iia. 
votpbv  xai  Kupudss,  oO/c  '^ov  ,uop<priv  —  "  God  is  an  intelligent  fiery  spirit, 
not  having  any  shape."  And  the  same  apprehension  is  evident  in 
that  of  Seneca,  "  Quid  est  Deus  ?  Mens  universi.  Quid  est  Deus  ? 
Quod  vides  totum,  et  quod  non  vides  totum.  Sic  demum  magni 
tude  sua  illi  redditur,  qua  nihil  majus  excogitari  potest,  si  solus  est 
omnia,  opus  suum  et  extra  et  intra  tenet.  Quid  ergo  interest  inter 
naturam  Dei  et  nostrarn?  Nostri  melior  pars  animus  est,  in  illo 
nulla  pars  extra  animum."  Natural.  Quasst.  lib.  i.  Prasfat.  It  would 
be  burdensome,  if  not  endless,  to  insist  on  the  testimonies  that  to 
this  purpose  might  be  produced  out  of  Plato,  Aristotle,  Cicero, 
Epictetus,  Julius  Firmicus,  and  others  of  the  same  order.  I  shall 
close  with  one  of  Alcinous,  de  Doctrina  Platon.  cap.  x.  :  "Aroxov  dz  rb» 
Qtbv  t%  2X»]£  tJvat  xai  I'idovs'  ou  yap  zffrai  a-rXoDj  olds  dp^ixog'  —  "  It  is 
absurd  to  say  that  God  is  of  matter  and  form  ;  for  if  so,  he  could 
neither  be  simple,  nor  the  principal  cause." 

The  thing  is  so  clear,  and  the  contrary,  even  by  the  heathen 
philosophers,  accounted  so  absurd,  that  I  shall  not  stand  to  pursue 
the  arguments  flowing  from  the  other  attributes  of  God,  but  proceed 
to  what  follows. 



Of  the  attribution  of  passions  and  affections,  anger,  fear,  repentance,  unto  God — 
In  what  sense  it  is  done  in  the  Scripture. 

His  next  inquiry  about  the  nature  of  God  respects  the  attribution 
of  several  affections  and  passions  unto  him  in  the  Scriptures,  of  whose 
sense  and  meaning  he  thus  expresseth  his  apprehension : — • 

Ques.  Are  there  not,  according  to  tJie  perpetual  tenor  of  the  Scriptures,  affec 
tions  and  passions  in  God,  as  anger,  fury,  zeal,  wrath,  love,  hatred,  mercy,  grace, 
jealousy,  repentance,  grief,  joy, fear? 

Concerning  which  he  labours  to  make  the  Scriptures  determine  in 
the  affirmative. 

1.  The  mam  of  Mr  Biddle's  design,  in  his  questions  about  the 
nature  of  God,  being  to  deprive  the  Deity  of  its  distinct  persons,  its 
omnipresence,  prescience,  and  therein  all  other  infinite  perfections, 
he  endeavours  to  make  him  some  recompense  for  all  that  loss  by  as 
cribing  to  him  in  the  foregoing  query  a  human  visible  shape,  and  in 
this,  human,  turbulent  affections  and  passions.     Commonly,  where 
men  will  not  ascribe  to  the  Lord  that  which  is  his  due,  he  gives  them 
up  to  assign  that  unto  him  which  he  doth  abhor,  Jer.  xliv.  15-17. 
Neither  is  it  easily  determinable  whether  be  the  greater  abomina 
tion.     By  the  first,  the  dependence  of  men  upon  the  true  God  is 
taken  off;  by  the  latter,  their  hope  is  fixed  on  a  false.   This,  on  both 
sides,  at  present  is  Mr  B/s  sad  employment.     The  Lord  lay  it  not  to 
his  charge,  but  deliver  him  from  the  snare  of  Satan,  wherein  he  is 
"  taken  alive  at  his  pleasure" !  2  Tim.  ii.  26. 

2.  The  things  here  assigned  to  God  are  ill  associated,  if  to  be  un 
derstood  after  the  same  manner.     Mercy  and  grace  we  acknowledge 
to  be  attributes  of  God ;  the  rest  mentioned  are  by  none  of  Mr  B/s 
companions  esteemed  any  other  than  acts  of  his  will,  and  those  meta 
phorically  assigned  to  him.1 

3.  To  the  whole  I  ask,  whether  these  things  are  in  the  Scriptures 
ascribed  properly  unto  God,  denoting  such  affections  and  passions  in 
him  as  those  in  us  are  which  are  so  termed?  or  whether  they  are 
assigned  to  him  and  spoken  of  him  metaphorically  only,  in  reference 
to  his  outward  works  and  dispensations,  correspondent  and  answering 
to  the  actings  of  men  in  whom  such  affections  are,  and  under  the 
power  whereof  they  are  in  those  actings?     If  the  latter  be  affirmed, 
then  as  such  an  attribution  of  them  unto  God  is  eminently  consistent 
with  all  his  infinite  perfections  and  blessedness,  so  there  can  be  no 
difference  about  this  question  and  the  answers  given  thereunto,  all 
men  readily  acknowledging  that  in  this  sense  the  Scripture  doth 
ascribe  all  the  affections  mentioned  unto  God,  of  which  we  say  as  he 

1  Crell.  de  Deo :  seu  Vera  Relig.,  cap.  xxix.  p.  295. 


of  old,  Taura  avdpu<ffo<7ra@u$  f^sv  \syovrai,  ^toffptvug  ds  voovvrai.  But  this, 
I  fear,  will  not  serve  Mr  B/s  turn.  The  very  phrase  and  manner  of 
expression  used  in  this  question,  the  plain  intimation  that  is  in  the 
forehead  thereof  of  its  author's  going  off  from  the  common  received 
interpretation  of  these  attributions  unto  God,  do  abundantly  manifest 
that  it  is  their  proper  significancy  which  he  contends  to  fasten  on 
God,  and  that  the  affections  mentioned  are  really  and  properly  in 
him  as  they  are  in  us.  This  being  evident  to  be  his  mind  and  in- 
tendment,  as  we  think  his  anthropopathism  in  this  query  not  to 
come  short  in  folly  and  madness  of  his  anthropomorphitism  in  that 
foregoing,  so  I  shall  proceed  to  the  removal  of  this  insinuation  in  the 
way  and  method  formerly  insisted  on. 

Mr  B.'s  masters  tell  us  "  That  these  affections  are  vehement  com 
motions  of  the  will  of  God,  whereby  he  is  carried  out  earnestly  to 
the  object  of  his  desires,  or  earnestly  declines  and  abhors  what  falls 
not  out  gratefully  or  acceptably  to  him."1  I  shall  first  speak  of  them 
in  general,  and  then  to  the  particulars  (some  or  all)  mentioned  by 
MrB.:—  ' 

First,  In  general,  that  God  is  perfect  and  perfectly  blessed,  I  sup 
pose  will  not  be  denied  ;  it  cannot  be  but  by  denying  that  he  is  God.1 
He  that  is  not  perfect  in  himself  and  perfectly  blessed  is  not  God. 
To  that  which  is  perfect  in  any  kind  nothing  is  wanting  in  that  kind. 
To  that  which  is  absolutely  perfect  nothing  is  wanting  at  all.  He 
who  is  blessed  is  perfectly  satisfied  and  filled,  and  hath  no  farther 
desire  for  supply.  He  who  is  blessed  in  himself  is  all-sufficient  for 
himself.  If  God  want  or  desire  any  thing  for  himself,  he  is  neither 
perfect  nor  blessed.  To  ascribe,  then,  affections  to  God  properly 
(such  as  before  mentioned),  is  to  deprive  him  of  his  perfection  and 
blessedness.  The  consideration  of  the  nature  of  these  and  the  like 
affections  will  make  this  evident. 

1.  Affections,  considered  in  themselves,  have  always  an  incomplete, 
imperfect  act  of  the  will  or  volition  joined  with  them.  They  are 
something  that  lies  between  the  firm  purpose  of  the  soul  and  the 
execution  of  that  purpose.3  The  proper  actings  of  affections  lie  be 
tween  these  two  ;  that  is,  in  an  incomplete,  tumultuary  volition.  That 
God  is  not  obnoxious  to  such  volitions  and  incomplete  actings  of  the 
will,  besides  the  general  consideration  of  his  perfections  and  blessed 
ness  premised,  is  evident  from  that  manner  of  procedure  which  is 
ascribed  to  him.  His  purposes  and  his  works  comprise  all  his  act 
ings.  As  the  Lord  hath  purposed,  so  hath  he  done.  "  He  worketh 
all  things  after  the  counsel  of  his  own  will."  "  Who  hath  known  his 

i  "  Voluntatis  divinse  commotiones,  praesertim  vehementiores,  seu  actus  ejusmodi, 
quibus  voluntas  vehementius  vel  in  objectum  suum  fertur,  vel  ab  eo  refugit,  atque  ab- 
horret,"  etc.  —  Crell.  de  Deo  :  seu  Vera  Relig.,  cap.  xxix.  p.  295.  Vid.  etiam  cap.  xxx.,  xxxi. 

z  Deut.  xxxii.  4  ;  Job  xxxvii.  16;  Rom.  i.  25,  ix.  5  ;  1  Tim.  i.  11,  vi.  15. 

8  Crell.  de  Deo,  ubi  supra. 


mind?  or  who  hath  been  his  counsellor  ?     Of  him,  and  through  him, 
and  to  him,  are  all  things."1 

2.  They  have  their  dependence  on  that  wherewith  he  in  whom 
they  are  is  affected;  that  is,  they  owe  their  rise  and  continuance  to 
something  without  him  in  whom  they  are.     A  man's  fear  ariseth 
from  that  or  them  of  whom  he  is  afraid ;  by  them  it  is  occasioned, 
on  them  it  depends.    Whatever  affects  any  man  (that  is,  the  stirring 
of  a  suitable  affection),  in  all  that  frame  of  mind  and  soul,  in  all  the 
volitions  and  commotions  of  will  which  so  arise  from  thence,  he  de 
pends  on  something  without  him.   Yea,>  our  being  affected  with  some 
thing  without  lies  at  the  bottom  of  most  of  our  purposes  and  resolves. 
Is  it  thus  with  God,  with  him  who  is  I  AM?  Exod.  iii.  14.     Is  he  in 
dependence  upon  any  thing  without  him  ?    Is  it  not  a  most  eminent 
contradiction  to  speak  of  God  in  dependence  on  any  other  thing? 
Must  not  that  thing  either  be  God  or  be  reduced  to  some  other  with 
out  and  besides  him,  who  is  God,  as  the  causes  of  all  our  affections 
are?     "  God  is  in  one  mind,  and  who  can  turn  him?  what  his  soul 
desireth,  that  he  doeth,"  Job  xxiii.  13. 

3.  Affections  are  necessarily  accompanied  with  change  and  mu 
tability;  yea,  he  who  is  affected  properly  is  really  changed;  yea, 
there  is  no  more  unworthy  change  or  alteration  than  that  which  is 
accompanied  with  passion,  as  is  the  change  that  is  wrought  by  the 
affections  ascribed  to  God.     A  sedate,  quiet,  considerate  alteration  is 
far  less  inglorious  and  unworthy  than  that  which  is  done  in  and  with 
passion.3     Hitherto  we  have  taken  God  upon  his  testimony,  that  he 
is  the  "LoKD,  and  he  changeth  not,"  Mai.  iii.  6 ;  that  "with  him  there 
is  neither  change  nor  shadow  of  turning;" — it  seems,  like  the  worms 
of  the  earth,  he  varieth  every  day. 

4.  Many  of  the  affections  here  ascribed  to  God  do  eminently  de 
note  impotence;  which,  indeed,  on  this  account,  both  by  Socinians  and 
Arminians,  is  directly  ascribed  to  the  Almighty.     They  make  him 
affectionately  and  with  commotion  of  will  to  desire  many  things  in 
their  own  nature  not  impossible,  which  yet  he  cannot  accomplish  or 
bring  about  (of  which  I  have  elsewhere  spoken) ;  yea,  it  will  appear 
that  the  most  of  the  affections  ascribed  to  God  by  Mr  B.,  taken  in  a 
proper  sense,  are  such  as  are  actually  ineffectual,  or  commotions 
through  disappointments,  upon  the  account  of  impotency  or  defect 
of  power. 

Corol.  To  ascribe  affections  properly  to  God  is  to  make  him  weak, 
imperfect,  dependent,  changeable,  and  impotent. 

Secondly,  Let  a  short  view  be  taken  of  the  particulars,  some  or  all 
of  them,  that  Mr  B.  chooseth  to  instance  in.  "  Anger,  fury,  wrath, 
zeal"  (the  same  in  kind,  only  differing  in  degree  and  circumstances), 

i  Isa.^xiv.  24;  Eph.  i.  11;  Rom.  xi.  33-36;  Isa.  xl.  13,  14. 

T<  ni  ariStifta  ftiT^oy  javji<r»  TOU  vft^.a.^a.nn  rt  «7-:nr<rav  rftvntdti ; — Philo. 


are  the  first  he  instances  in ;  and  the  places  produced  to  make  good 
this  attribution  to  God  are,  Num.  xxv.  3,  4;  Ezek.  v.  13;  Exod. 
xxxii.  11,  12;  Rom.  i.  18. 

1.  That  mention  is  made  of  the  anger,  wrath,  and  fury  of  God  in 
the  Scripture  is  not  questioned.     Num.  xxv.  4,  Deut.  xiii.  17,  Josh, 
vii.  26,  Ps.  Ixxviii.  31,  Isa.  xiii.  9,  Deut.  xxix.  24,  Judges  ii.  14,  Ps. 
Ixxiv.  1,  Ixix.  24,  Isa.  xxx.  30,  Lam.  ii.  6,  Ezek.  v.  15,  Ps.  Ixxviii.  49, 
Isa  xxxiv.  2,  2  Chrou.  xxviii.  11,  Ezra  x.  14,  Hab.  iii.  8,  12,  are 
farther  testimonies  thereof.     The  words  also  in  the  original,  in  all 
the  places  mentioned,  express  or  intimate  perturbation  of  mind, 
commotion  of  spirit,  corporeal  mutation  of  the  parts  of  the  body, 
and  the  like  distempers  of  men  acting  under  the  power  of  that 
passion.     The  whole  difference  is  about  the  intendment  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  these  attributions,  and  whether  they  are  properly  spoken  of 
God,  asserting  this  passion  to  be  in  him  in  the  proper  significancy 
of  the  words,  or  whether  these  things  be  not  taken  uvdpuvoKaOXig, 
and  to  be  understood  SioirpfTrus,  in  such  a  sense  as  may  answer  the 
meaning  of  the  figurative  expression,  assigning  them  their  truth  to 
the  utmost,  and  yet  to  be  interpreted  in  a  suitableness  to  divine  per 
fection  and  blessedness. 

2.  The  anger,  then,  which  in  the  Scripture  is  assigned  to  God,  we 
say  denotes  two  things  : — 

(1.)  His  vindictive  justice,  or  constant  and  immutable  will  of  ren 
dering  vengeance  for  sin.1  So  God's  purpose  of  the  demonstration  of 
his  justice  is  called  his  being  "  willing  to  show  his  wrath"  or  anger, 
Rom.  ix.  22 ;  so  God's  anger  and  his  judgments  are  placed  together, 
Ps.  vii.  6;  and  in  that  anger  he  judgeth,  verse  8.  And  in  this  sense  is 
the  "wrath  of  God"  said  to  be  "revealed  from  heaven,"  Rom.  i.  18; 
that  is,  the  vindictive  justice  of  God  against  sin  to  be  manifested  in 
the  effepts  of  it,  or  the  judgments  sent  and  punishments  inflicted  on 
and  throughout  the  world. 

(2.)  By  anger,  wrath,  zeal,  fury,  the  effects  of  anger  are  denoted  : 
Rom.  iii.  5,  "  Is  God  unrighteous  who  taketh  vengeance  ?"  The 
words  are,  6  eimp'epuv  rqv  opyw, — "  who  inflicteth  or  bringeth  anger  on 
man  ;"  that  is,  sore  punishments,  such  as  proceed  from  anger ;  that  is, 
God's  vindictive  justice.  And  Eph.  v.  6,  "  For  these  things  cometh 
the  wrath  of  God  upon  the  children  of  disobedience."  Is  it  the  pas 
sion  or  affection  of  anger  in  God  that  Mr  B.  talks  of,  that  comes  upon 
the  children  of  disobedience?  or  is  it  indeed  the  effect  of  his  justice 
for  this  sin  ?  *  Thus  the  day  of  judgment  is  called  the  "  day  of  wrath" 
and  of  "  anger,"  because  it  is  the  day  of  the  "  revelation  of  the 
righteous  judgment  of  God  :"  Rom.  ii.  5,  "  After  thy  hardness/' 

1  Vid.  Andr.  Bivetum  in  Ps.  ii.  p.  11,  et  in  Exod.  iy.  p.  14,  et  Aquinat.  1,  part.  q.  3, 
art.  2,  ad  secundum.    "  Ira  dicitur  de  Deo  secundum  similitudinem  effectus,  quia  pro- 
prium  est  irati  punire,  ejus  ira  punitio  metaphorice  vocatur." 

2  "  'H  Ipyri  TIU  emu,  Divina  ultio,  Rom.  i.  18,  CoL  iii.  6." — Grotius  in  locum. 


etc.  In  the  place  of  Ezekiel  (chap.  v.  13)  mentioned  by  Mr  B.,  the 
Lord  tells  them  he  will  "  cause  his  fury  to  rest  upon  them,"  and  "ac 
complish  it  upon  them."  I  ask  whether  he  intends  this  of  any  passion 
in  him  (and  if  so,  how  a  passion  in  God  can  rest  upon  a  man),  or  the 
judgments  which  for  their  iniquities  he  did  inflict  ?  We  say,  then, 
anger  is  not  properly  ascribed  to  God,  but  metaphorically,  denoting 
partly  his  vindictive  justice,  whence  all  punishments  flow,  partly 
the  effects  of  it  in  the  punishments  themselves,  either  threatened  or 
inflicted,  in  their  terror  and  bitterness,  upon  the  account  of  what  is 
analogous  therein  to  our  proceeding  under  the  power  of  that  passion; 
and  so  is  to  be  taken  in  all  the  places  mentioned  by  Mr  B.  For,  — 

3.  Properly,  in  the  sense  by  him  pointed  to,  anger,  wrath,  etc., 
are  not  in  God.     Anger  is  denned  by  the  philosopher  to  be,  opi^i; 
(MTU  Xtwnjs  TifAupias  paivopevri;,  dia  paivoftsvrjv  oXiyupiav,  —  "  desire  joined 
with  grief  of  that  which  appears  to  be  revenge,  for  an  appearing  ne 
glect  or  contempt."     To  this  grief,  he  tells  you,  there  is  a  kind  of 
pleasure  annexed,  arising  from  the  vehement  fancy  which  an  angry 
person  hath  of  the  revenge  he  apprehends  as  future,1  —  which,  saith 
he,  "  is  like  the  fancy  of  them  that  dream,"3  —  and  he  ascribes  this  pas 
sion  mostly  to  weak,  impotent  persons.     Ascribe  this  to  God,  and 
you  leave  him  nothing  else.     There  is  not  one  property  of  his  nature 
wherewith  it  is  consistent.     If  he  be  properly  and  literally  angry, 
and  furious,  and  wrathful,  he  is  moved,  troubled,  perplexed,  desires 
revenge,  and  is  neither  blessed  nor  perfect.     But  of  these  things  in 
our  geneial  reasons  against  the  propriety  of  these  attributions  after 

4.  Mr.  B.  hath  given  us  a  rule  in  his  preface,  that  when  any  thing 
is  ascribed  to  God  in  one  place  which  is  denied  of  him  in  another, 
then  it  is  not  properly  ascribed  to  him.     Now,  God  says  expressly 
that  "  fury"  or  anger  "is  not  in  him,"  Isa,  xxvii.  4;  and  therefore  it 
is  not  properly  ascribed  to  him. 

5.  Of  all  the  places  where  mention  is  made  of  God's  repentings, 
or  his  repentance,  there  is  the  same  reason.      Exod.  xxxiL  14,  Gen. 
vi.  6,  7,  Judges  x.  1  6,  Deut.  xxx.  9,  are  produced  by  Mr.  B.     That  one 
place  of  1  Sam.  xv.  29,  where  God  affirms  that  he  "  knoweth  no  re 
pentance,"  casts  all  the  rest  under  a  necessity  of  an  interpretation  suit 
able  unto  it.     Of  all  the  affections  or  passions  which  we  are  obnoxious 
to,  there  is  none  that  more  eminently  proclaims  imperfection,  weak 
ness,  and  want  in  sundry  kinds,  than  this  of  repentance.     If  not  sins, 
mistakes,  and  miscarriages  (as  for  the  most  part  they  are),  yet  dis 
appointment,  grief,  and  trouble,  are  always  included  in  it.     So  is  it 
in  that  expression,  Gen.  vi.  6,  "  It  repented  the  LORD  that  he  had 

'H  «J»  T«T»  lyyioiftiiin  (fetfraff'ta  «5avn»  faili,  uffftf  fi  ru»  i\vriiui.  —  Arist.  Rhet.  lib.  ii 

cap.  ii. 

ipyhei  Ctrl.  —  Id.  ubi  sup. 


made  man  on  the  earth,  and  it  grieved  him  at  his  heart."1  What 
but  his  mistake  and  great  disappointment,  by  a  failing  of  wisdom, 
foresight,  and  power,  can  give  propriety  to  these  attributions  unto 
God?  The  change  God  was  going  then  to  work  in  his  providence 
on  the  earth  was  such  or  like  that  which  men  do  when  they  repent 
of  a  thing,  being  "  grieved  at  the  heart"  for  what  they  had  formerly 
done.  So  are  these  things  spoken  of  God  to  denote  the  kind  of  the 
things  which  he  doth,  not  the  nature  of  God  himself;  otherwise 
such  expressions  as  these  would  suit  him,  whose  frame  of  spirit  and 
heart  is  so  described :  "  Had  I  seen  what  would  have  been  the  issue 
of  making  man,  I  would  never  have  done  it.  Would  I  had  never 
been  so  overseen  as  to  have  engaged  in  such  a  business !  What  have 
I  now  got  by  my  rashness  ?  nothing  but  sorrow  and  grief  of  heart 
redounds  to  me."  And  do  these  become  the  infinitely  blessed  God  ? 
6.  Fear  is  added,  from  Deut.  xxxii.  26,  27.  "Fear,"  saith  the  wise 
man,  "  is  a  betraying  of  those  succours  which  reason  offereth;"3 — na 
ture's  avoidance  of  an  impendent  evil ;  its  contrivance  to  flee  and  pre 
vent  what  it  abhors,  being  in  a  probability  of  coming  upon  it ;  a  tur 
bulent  weakness.  This  God  forbids  in  us,  upon  the  account  of  his 
being  our  God,  Isa.  xxxv.  4 ;  "Fear  not,  O  worm  Jacob,"  etc.,  chap.  xli. 
14.  Everywhere  he  asserts  fear  to  be  unfit  for  them  who  depend  on 
him  and  his  help,  who  is  able  in  a  moment  to  dissipate,  scatter,  and 
reduce  to  nothing,  all  the  causes  of  their  fear.  And  if  there  ought 
to  be  no  fear  where  such  succour  is  ready  at  hand,  sure  there  is  none 
in  Him  who  gives  it.  Doubtless,  it  were  much  better  to  exclude  the 
providence  of  God  out  of  the  world  than  to  assert  him  afraid  pro 
perly  and  directly  of  future  events.  The  schools  say  truly,  "  Quod 
res  sunt  futurae,  a  voluntate  Dei  est  (effectiva  vel  permissiva)."  How, 
then,  can  God  be  afraid  of  what  he  knows  will,  and  purposeth  shall, 
come  to  pass  ?  He  doth,  he  will  do,  things  in  some  likeness  to  what 
we  do  for  the  prevention  of  what  we  are  afraid  of.  He  will  not 
'scatter  his  people,  that  their  adversaries  may  not  have  advantage  to 
trample  over  them.  When  we  so  act  as  to  prevent  any  thing  that, 
unless  we  did  so  act,  would  befall  us,  it  is  because  we  are  afraid  of 
the  coming  of  that  thing  upon  us  :  hence  is  the  reason  of  that  attri 
bution  unto  God.  That  properly  He  should  be  afraid  of  what  comes 

1  Theodoret  on  this  place  tells  us,  "  "ol>  priv,  <Js  <rm;  Qa/riy,  etc.    Non  autem  utfuenmt 
quidam"  (so  that  Mr  B.  is  not  the  first  that  held  this  opinion),  "  it-a  quadam  et  poani- 

tentia  ductUS  Deus  haec  egit  :    Taura.  yap  <rm  avfya^nva  <xa.Qn  n  $i  $'»<*•  Qvffis  \\tu6ipa,  vrufai." 

And  then  he  adds,  "  TJ  "Miron  <raiwv,  etc.  Quomodo  ergo  pcenitentia  cadat  in  Deum  ?" 
His  answer  is,  "  olx  oli  \n\  Qtou  psrapiteia,  etc.  Quare  psenitentia  Dei  nihil  aliud  est, 
quam  mutatio  dispensationis  ejus.  Pcenitet  me  (inquit)  quod  constituerim  Saul  regem, 
pro  eo  quod  est,  statui  ilium  deponere.  Sic  in  hoc  loco  (Gen.  vi.  6),  Pcenitet  fecisse  me 
hominem;  hoc  est,  decrevi  perdere  humanum  genus." — Theod.  in  Gen.  quaest.  50,  torn.  i. 
pp.  41,  42. 

2  "Etrra  $t  QoSoi,  \vfn  n;  «  rKpa%ri  IK  (favraffix;,  /titXXavros  KO.X.OU  tl  <Q$&(rtx.ou,  %  Z-wrnpou- — 
Arist.  Ehet.  lib.  ii.  cap.  vi. 

VOL.  XII.  8 


to  pass  who  knows  from  eternity  what  will  so  do,  who  can  with  the 
breath  of  his  mouth  destroy  all  the  objects  of  his  dislike,  who  is  in 
finitely  wise,  blessed,  all-sufficient,  and  the  sovereign  disposer  of  the 
lives,  breath,  and  ways  of  all  the  sons  of  men,  is  fit  for  Mr.  B.  and 
no  man  else  to  affirm.  "  All  the  nations  are  before  him  as  the  drop 
of  the  bucket,  and  the  dust  of  the  balance,  as  vanity,  as  nothing;  he 
upholdeth  them  by  the  word  of  his  power ;  in  him  all  men  live,  and 
move,  and  have  their  being,"  and  can  neither  live,  nor  act,  nor  be 
without  him ;  their  life,  and  breath,  and  all  their  ways,  are  in  his 
hands ;  he  brings  them  to  destruction,  and  says,  "  Keturn,  ye  children 
of  men  ;"1  and  must  he  needs  be  properly  afraid  of  what  they  will  do 
to  him  and  against  him  ? 

7.  Of  God's  jealousy  and  hatred,  mentioned  from  Ps.  v.  4,  5, 
Exod.  xx.  5,  Deut.  xxxii.  21,  there  is  the  same  reason.  Such  effects 
as  these  things  in  us  produce  shall  they  meet  withal  who  provoke 
him  by  their  blasphemies  and  abominations.  Of  love,  mercy,  and 
grace,  the  condition  is  something  otherwise  :  principally  they  denote 
God's  essential  goodness  and  kindness,  which  is  eminent  amongst  his 
infinite  perfections ;  and  secondarily  the  effects  thereof,  in  and 
through  Jesus  Christ,  are  denoted  by  these  expressions.  To  manifest 
that  neither  they  nor  any  thing  else,  as  they  properly  intend  any 
affections  or  passions  of  the  mind,  any  commotions  of  will,  are  pro 
perly  attributed  to  God,  unto  what  hath  been  spoken  already  these 
ensuing  considerations  may  be  subjoined :— r 

(1.)  Where  no  cause  of  stirring  up  affections  or  passions  can  have 
place  or  be  admitted,  there  no  affections  are  to  be  admitted ;  for 
to  what  end  should  we  suppose  that  whereof  there  can  be  no  use  to 
eternity?  If  it  be  impossible  any  affection  in  God  should  be  stirred 
up  or  acted,  is  it  not  impossible  any  such  should  be  in  him  ?  The 
causes  stirring  up  all  affections  are  the  access  of  some  good  desired, 
whence  joy,  hope,  desire,  etc.,  have  their  spring ;  or  the  approach  of 
some  evil  to  be  avoided,  which  occasions  fear,  sorrow,  anger,  repent 
ance,  and  the  like.  Now,  if  no  good  can  be  added  to  God,  whence 
should  joy  and  desire  be  stirred  up  in  him  ?  if  no  evil  can  befall  him, 
in  himself  or  any  of  his  concernments,  whence  should  he  have  fear, 
Borrow,  or  repentance  ?  Our  goodness  extends  not  to  him  ;  he 
hath  no  need  of  us  or  our  sacrifices,  Ps.  xvi.  2,  1.  8-10  ;  Job  xxxv. 
6-8.  "  Can  a  man  be  profitable  unto  God,  as  he  that  is  wise  may  be 
profitable  to  himself  ?  Is  it  any  pleasure  to  the  Almighty,  that  thou 
art  righteous?  or  is  it  gain  to  him,  that  thou  makest  thy  ways  per 
fect?"  chap.  xxii.  2,  3. 

(2.)  The  apostle  tells  us  that  God.  is  "  blessed  for  ever,"  Rom.  ix.  5  j 

i  Acts  xv.  18;  2  Sam.  xxii.  16;  Job  iv.  9;  Ps.  xviii.  15;  Rom.  i.  25;  Gen.  xvii.  1; 
Horn.  ix.  16-18,  etc.,  xi.  34-36;  Isa.  xl.  15;  Heb.  i.  3 ;  Pa.  xxxiii  9-  Acts  xvii. 
24-28  ;  Ps.  L  8  ;  Dan.  v.  23  ;  Ps.  xc.  3;  Job  xxxiv.  19. 


"  He  is  the  blessed  and  only  Potentate,"  1  Tim.  vl  15  ;  "  God  all- 
sufficient/'  Gen.  xvii.  1.  That  which  is  inconsistent  with  absolute 
blessedness  and  all-sufficiency  is  not  to  be  ascribed  to  God ;  to  do 
so  casts  him  down  from  his  excellency.  But  can  he  be  blessed,  is 
he  all-sufficient,  who  is  tossed  up  and  down  with  hope,  joy,  fear, 
sorrow,  repentance,  anger,  and  the  like  ?  Doth  not  fear  take  off 
from  absolute  blessedness  ?  Grant  that  God's  fear  doth  not  long 
abide,  yet  whilst  it  doth  so,  he  is  less  blessed  than  he  was  before  and 
than  he  is  after  his  fear  ceaseth.  When  he  hopes,  is  he  not  short  in 
happiness  of  that  condition  which  he  attains  in  the  enjoyment  of 
what  he  hoped  for  ?  and  is  he  not  lower  when  he  is  disappointed 
and  falls  short  of  his  expectation  ?  Did  ever  the  heathens  speak 
with  more  contempt  of  what  they  worshipped  ?  Formerly  the  pride 
of  some  men  heightened  them  to  fancy  themselves  to  be  like  God, 
without  passions  or  affections,  Ps.  1.  21 ;  being  not  able  to  abide 
in  their  attempt  against  their  own  sense  and  experience,  it  is  now 
endeavoured  to  make  God  like  to  us,  in  having  such  passions  and 
affections.  My  aim  is  brevity,  having  many  heads  to  speak  unto. 
Those  who  have  written  on  the  attributes  of  God, — his  self-sufficiency 
and  blessedness,  simplicity,  immutability,  etc., — are  ready  to  tender 
farther  satisfaction  to  them  who  shall  desire  it. 


Of  God's  prescience  or  foreknowledge, 

His  next  attempt  is  to  overthrow  and  remove  the  prescience  or 
foreknowledge  of  God,  with  what  success  the  farther  consideration  of 
the  way  whereby  he  endeavours  it  will  manifest.  His  question  (the 
engine  whereby  he  works)  is  thus  framed  : — 

As  for  our  free  actions  which  are  neither  past  nor  present,  but  may  afterward 
either  be  or  not  be,  what  are  the  chief  passages  of  Scripture  from  whence  it  is 
wont  to  be  gathered  that  God  knoweth  not  such  actions  until  they  come  to  pass, 
yea,  that  there  are  such  actions  ? 

That  we  might  have  had  a  clearer  acquaintance  with  the  intend- 
ment  of  this  interrogation,  it  is  desirable  Mr  Biddle  had  given  us  his 
sense  on  some  particulars,  which  at  first  view  present  themselves  to 
the  trouble  of  every  ordinary  reader ;  as, — 

1.  How  we  may  reconcile  the  words  of  Scripture  given  in  answer 
to  his  preceding  query  with  the  design  of  this.  There  it  is  asserted 
that  God  "  understandeth  our  thoughts"  (which  certainly  are  of  our 
free  actions,  if  any  such  there  are)  "  afar  off ;"  here,  that  he  knows  not 
our  free  actions  that  are  future,  and  not  yet  wrought  or  performed. 

2  By  whom  is  it  "  wont  to  be  gathered"  from  the  following  scrip. 


tures  that  "  God  knowetli  not  our  free  actions  until  they  come  to 
pass."  Why  doth  not  this  "mere  Christian,"  that  is  of  no  sect,  name 
his  companions  and  associates  in  these  learned  collections  from 
Scripture  ?  Would  not  his  so  doing  discover  him  to  be  so  far  from 
a  mere  Christian,  engaged  in  none  of  the  sects  that  are  now  amongst 
Christians,  as  to  be  of  that  sect  which  the  residue  of  men  so  called 
will  scarce  allow  the  name  of  a  Christian  unto?1 

3.  What  he  intends  by  the  close  of  his  query,  "  Yea,  that  there 
are  such  actions."  An  advance  is  evident  in  the  words  towards  a 
farther  negation  of  the  knowledge  of  God  than  what  was  before 
expressed.  Before,  he  says,  God  knows  not  our  actions  that  are 
future  contingent;  here,  he  knows  not  that  there  are  such  actions. 
The  sense  of  this  must  be,  either  that  God  knows  not  that  there  are 
any  such  actions  as  may  or  may  not  be, — which  would  render  him 
less  knowing  than  Mr  B.,  who  hath  already  told  us  that  such  there 
be, — or  else  that  he  knows  not  such  actions  when  they  are,  at  least 
without  farther  inquiring  after  them,  and  knowledge  obtained  be 
yond  what  from  his  own  infinite  perfections  and  eternal  purpose  he 
is  furnished  withal.  In  Mr  B/s  next  book  or  catechism,  I  desire  he 
would  answer  these  questions  also. 

Now  in  this  endeavour  of  his  Mr  B.  doth  but  follow  his  leaders. 
Socinus  in  his  Prelections,  where  the  main  of  his  design  is  to  vindi 
cate  man's  free-will  into  that  latitude  and  absoluteness  as  none 
before  him  had  once  aimed  at,  in  his  eighth  chapter  objects  to 
himself  this  foreknowledge  of  God  as  that  which  seems  to  abridge 
and  cut  short  the  liberty  contended  for.3  He  answers  that  he 
grants  not  the  foreknowledge  pretended,  and  proceeds  hi  that  and 
the  two  following  chapters,  labouring  to  answer  all  the  testimonies 
and  arguments  which  are  insisted  on  for  the  proof  and  demonstra 
tion  of  it,  giving  his  own  arguments  against  it,  chap.  xi.  Crellius 
is  something  more  candid,  as  he  pretends,  but  indeed  infected  with 
the  same  venom  with  the  other;  for  after  he  hath  disputed  for 
sundry  pages  to  prove  the  foreknowledge  of  God,  he  concludes  at 
last  that  for  those  things  that  are  future  contingent,  he  knows  only 
that  they  are  so,  and  that  possibly  they  may  come  to  pass,  possibly 
they  may  not3  Of  the  rest  of  their  associates  few  have  spoken  ex- 

1  Stegman.  Photin.  Eefut.  Disput.  1  q.  2;  An  Photiniani  ullo  modo  Christian!  dici 
queant ;  Neg.  Martin.  Smiglec.  Jes.  Nova  Monstra,  novi  Ariani.  cap.  1 ;  Arianos  nullo 
modo  Christianos  dici  posse. 

*  "  Ut  ad  rationem  istam  non  minus  plene  quam  plane  respondeamus,  animadverten- 
dum  est,  infallibilem  istam  Dei  praenotionem,  quam  pro  re  concessa  adversarii  sumunt, 
a  nobis  non  admitti." — Socin.  Praelec.  cap.  viii.  p.  25.  "Cum  igitur  nulla  ratio,  nullus 
sacrarum  literarum  locus  sit,  ex  quo  aperte  colligi  possit,  Deum  omnia  quse  fiunt, 
scivisse  antequam  fierent,  concludendum  est,  minime  asserendam  esse  a  nobis  istam 
Dei  pnescientiam :  prsesertim,  cum  et  rationes  non  paucae,  et  sacra  testimonia  non 
desint,  unde  earn  plane  negandam  esse  apparet." — Idem,  cap.  xi.  p.  38. 

8  "  Itaque  inconsiderate  illi  faciunt,  qui  futura  contingentia  Deum  determinate  scire 


pressly  to  this  thing.  Smalcius  once  and  again  manifests  himself  to 
consent  with  his  masters  in  his  disputations  against  Franzius,  ex 
pressly  consenting  to  what  Socinus  had  written  in  his  Prelections, 
and  affirming  the  same  thing  himself,  yea,  disputing  eagerly  for  the 
same  opinion  with  him,1 

For  the  vindication  of  God's  foreknowledge,  I  shall  proceed  in 
the  same  order  as  before  in  reference  to  the  other  attributes  of  God 
insisted  on,  namely: — 1.  What  Mr  B.  hath  done,  how  he  hath  dis 
posed  of  sundry  places  of  Scripture  for  the  proof  of  his  assertion, 
with  the  sense  of  the  places  by  him  so  produced,  is  to  be  con 
sidered  ;  2.  Another  question  and  answer  are  to  be  supplied  in  the 
room  of  his ;  3.  The  truth  vindicated  to  be  farther  confirmed. 

For  the  first : — 

In  the  proof  of  the  assertion  proposed  Mr  B.  finds  himself  entangled 
more  than  ordinarily,  though  I  confess  .his  task  in  general  be  such  as 
no  man  not  made  desperate  by  the  loss  of  all  in  a  shipwreck  of  faith 
would  once  have  undertaken.  To  have  made  good  his  proceeding 
according  to  his  engagement,  he  ought  at  least  to  have  given  us  texts 
of  Scripture  express  in  the  letter,  as  by  him  cut  off  from  the  state, 
condition,  and  coherence,  wherein  by  the  Holy  Ghost  they  are  placed, 
for  the  countenancing  of  his  assertion :  but  here,  being  not  able  to 
make  any  work  in  his  method,  proposed  and  boasted  in  as  signal  and 
uncontrollable,  no  apex  or  tittle  in  the  Scripture  being  pointed  to 
wards  the  denial  of  God's  knowing  any  thing  or  all  things,  past,  pre 
sent,  and  to  come,  he  moulds  his  question  into  a  peculiar  fashion,  and 
asks,  whence  or  from  what  place  of  Scripture  may  such  a  thing  as  he 
there  avers  be  gathered  ;  at  once  plainly  declining  the  trial  he  had 
put  himself  upon  of  insisting  upon  express  texts  of  Scripture  only, 
not  one  of  the  many  quoted  by  him  speaking  one  word  expressly  to 
the  business  in  hand,  and  laying  himself  naked  to  all  consequences 
rightly  deduced  from  the  Scripture,  and  expositions  given  to  the  letter 
of  some  places  suitable  to  "the  proportion  of  faith,"  Rom.  xii.  6.  That, 
then,  which  he  would  have,  he  tells  you  is  gathered  from  the  places  of 
Scripture  subjoined,  but  how,  by  whom,  by  what  consequence,  with 
what  evidence  of  reason,  it  is  so  gathered,  he  tells  you  not.  An 
understanding,  indeed,  informed  with  such  gross  conceptions  of  the 
nature  of  the  Deity  as  Mr  B.  hath  laboured  to  insinuate  into  the 
minds  of  men,  might  gather,  from  his  collection  of  places  of  Scrip 
ture  for  his  purpose  in  hand,  that  God  is  afraid,  troubled,  grieved, 

aivmt,  quia  alias  non  esset  omniscius :  cum  potius,  ideo  ilia  determinate  futura  non 
concipiat,  quia  est  omniscius." — Crell.  de  Vera  Relig.  lib.  i.  cap.  xxiv.  p.  201. 

1  "  Nam  si  omnia  futura,  qualiacunque  sunt,  Deo  ab  omni  aeternitate  determinate 
cognita  fuisse  contendas ;  necesse  est  statuere  omnia  necessario  fieri,  ac  futura  esse. 
Unde  sequitur,  nullam  esse,  aut  fuisse  unquam,  humanse  voluntatis  libertatem,  ac 
porro  nee  religionem." — Idem  ibid,  p.  202.  Smalcius  Refut.  Thes.  Franz,  disput.  1. 
de  Trinitat.  p.  3,  disput.  12,  de  Caus.  Peccat.  p.  428,  429,  etc.,  435. 


that  he  repenteth,  altereth  and  changeth  his  mind  to  and  fro ;  but 
of  his  knowledge  or  foreknowledge  of  things,  whether  he  have  any 
such  thing  or  not,  there  is  not  the  least  intimation,  unless  it  be  in 
this,  that  if  he  had  any  such  foreknowledge,  he  need  not  put  himself 
to  so  much  trouble  and  vexation,  nor  so  change  and  alter  his  mind, 
as  he  doth.  And  with  such  figments  as  these  (through  the  infinite, 
wise,  and  good  providence  of  God,  punishing  the  wantonness  of  the 
minds  and  lives  of  men,  by  giving  them  up  to  strong  delusions  and 
vain  imaginations,  in  the  darkness  of  their  foolish  hearts,  2  Thess. 
ii.  10-12,  so  far  as  to  change  the  glory  of  the  incorruptible  God 
into  the  likeness  of  a  corruptible,  weak,  ignorant,  sinful  man,  Rom. 

1.  23),  are  we  now  to  deal. 

But  let  the  places  themselves  be  considered.  To  these  heads  they 
may  be  referred: — 1.  Such  as  ascribe  unto  God  fear  and  being  afraid. 
Deut.  xxxii.  26,  27;  Exod.  xiii.  17;  Gen.  iii.  22,  23,  are  of  this  sort. 

2.  Repentance,  1  Sam.  xv.  10,  11,  ult.     3.  Change,  or  alteration  of 
mind,  Num.  xiv.  27,  30;  1  Sam.  ii.  30.     4.  Expectation  whether  a 
thing  will  answer  his  desire  or  no,  Isa.  v.  4.     Conjecturing,  Jer. 
xxxvi.  1  -3 ;  Ezek.  xii.  1-3.    5.  Trying  of  experiments,  Judges  iii.  1,  4 ; 
Dan.  xii.  10;  2  Chron.  xxxii.  31.     From  all  which  and  the  like  it 
may,  by  Mr  B/s  direction  and  help,  be  thus  gathered :  "  If  God  be 
afraid  of  what  is  to  come  to  pass,  and  repenteth  him  of  what  he  hath 
done  when  he  finds  it  not  to  answer  his  expectation ;  if  he  sits  divin 
ing  and  conjecturing  at  events,  being  often  deceived  therein,  and 
therefore  tries  and  makes  experiments  that  he  may  be  informed 
of  the  true  state  of  things :  then  certainly  he  knows  not  the  free  ac 
tions  of  men,  that  are  not  yet  come  to  pass."     The  antecedent  Mr  B. 
hath  proved  undeniably  from  ten  texts  of  Scripture,  and  doubtless  the 
consequent  is  easily  to  be  gathered  by  any  of  his  disciples.     Doubt 
less  it  is  high  time  that  the  old,  musty  catechisms  of  prejudicate 
persons,  who  scarce  so  much  as  once  consulted  with  the  Scriptures 
in  their  composures,  as  being  more  engaged  into  factions,  were  re 
moved  out  of  the  way  and  burned,  that  this  "  mere  Christian"  may 
have  liberty  to  bless  the  growing  generation  with  such  notions  of  God 
as  the  idolatrous  Pagans  of  old  would  have  scorned  to  have  received. 

But  do  not  the  Scriptures  ascribe  all  the  particulars  mentioned 
unto  God?  Can  you  blame  Mr  B.  without  reflection  on  them? 
If  only  what  the  Scripture  affirms  in  the  letter,  and  not  the  sense 
wherein  and  the  manner  how  it  affirms  it  (which  considerations  are 
allowed  to  all  the  writings  and  speakings  of  the  sons  of  men)  is  to  be 
considered,  the  end  seeming  to  be  aimed  at  in  such  undertakings  as 
this  of  Mr  B.,  namely,  to  induce  the  atheistical  spirits  of  the  sons  of 
men  to  a  contempt  and  scorn  of  them  and  their  authority,  will  pro 
bably  be  sooner  attained  than  by  the  efficacy  of  any  one  engine  raised 
against  them  in  the  world  besides. 


As  to  the  matter  under  consideration^  I  have  some  few  things  in 
general  to  propose  to  Mr  B.,  and  then  I  shall  descend  to  the  particu 
lars  insisted  on: — 

First,  then,  I  desire  to  know  whether  the  things  mentioned,  as 
fear,  grief,  repentance,  trouble,  conjecturings,  making  trials  of  men 
for  his  own  information,  are  ascribed  properly  to  God  as  they  are  unto 
men,  or  tropically  and  figurativelyj  with  a  condescension  to  us,  to  ex 
press  the  things  spoken  of,  and  not  to  describe  the  nature  of  God.1 
If  the  first  be  said,  namely,  that  these  things  are  ascribed  properly 
to  God,  and  really  signify  of  him  the  things  in  us  intended  in  them,  then 
to  what  hath  been  spoken  in  the  consideration  taken  of  the  foregoing 
query,  I  shall  freely  add,  for  mine  own  part,  I  will  not  own  nor  wor 
ship  him  for  my  God  who  is  truly  and  properly  afraid  of  what  ah1  the 
men  in  the  world  either  will  or  can  do ;  who  doth,  can  do,  or  hath 
done  any  thing,  or  suffered  any  thing  to  be  done,  of  which  he  doth  or 
can  truly  and  properly  repent  himself,  with  sorrow  and  grief  for  his  mis 
take;  or  that  sits  in  heaven  divining  and  conjecturing  at  what  men 
will  do  here  below :  and  do  know  that  he  whom  I  serve  in  my  spirit  will 
famish  and  starve  all  such  gods  out  of  the  world.  But  of  this  before. 
If  these  things  are  ascribed  to  God  figuratively  and  improperly,  dis 
covering  the  kind  of  his  works  and  dispensations>  not  his  own  nature 
or  property,  I  would  fain  know  what  inference  can  be  made  or  con 
clusion  drawn  from  such  expressions,  directly  calling  for  a  figurative 
interpretation  ?  For  instance,  if  God  be  said  to  repent  that  he  had 
done  such  a  thing,  because  such  and  such  things  are  come  to  pass 
thereupon,  if  this  repentance  in  God  be  not  properly  ascribed  to  him 
(as  by  Mr  B/s  own  rule  it  is  not),  but  denotes  only  an  alteration  and 
change  in  the  works  that  outwardly  are  of  him,  in  an  orderly  subser 
viency  to  the  immutable  purpose  of  his  will,  what  can  thence  be 
gathered  to  prove  that  God  foreseeth  not  the  free  actions  of  men  ? 
And  this  is  the  issue  of  Mr  B/s  confirmation  of  the  thesis  couched 
in  his  query  insisted  on  from  the  Scriptures. 

2.  I  must  crave  leave  once  more  to  mind  him  of  the  rule  he  hath 
given  us  in  his  preface,  namely,  "That  where  a  thing  is  improperly  as 
cribed  to  God,  in  some  other  place  it  is  denied  of  him,"  as  he  instances 
in  that  of  his  being  weary:  so  that  whatever  is  denied  of  him  in  any 
one  place  is  not  properly  ascribed  to  him  in  any  other.  Now,  though 
God  be  said,  in  some  of  the  places  by  him  produced,  to  repent,  yet  it 
is  in  another  expressly  said  that  he  doth  not  so,  and  that  upon  such 

'"Poenitentia  infert  ignorantiam  praeteriti,  preseritis,  et  futuri,  mutationem  volun- 
tatis,  et  errorem  in  consiliis,  quorum  nihil  in  Deum  cadere  potest :  dicitur  tamen  ille  me- 
taphorice  pcenitentia  duci,  quemadmodum  nos,  quando  alicujus  rei  pcenitet,  abolemus  id 
quod  antea  feceramus :  quod  fieri  potest  sine  tali  mutatione  voluntatisi  qua  nunc  homo 
aliquid  facit,  quod  post  mutato  animo,  destruit." — Manasseh  Ben.  Israel,  conciliat.  in  Gen. 
vi.  q.  23.  "  Pcenitentia,  cum  mutabilitatem  importet,  non  potest  esse  in  Deo,  dicitur 
tamcn  poenitere,  eo  quod  ad  modum  pcenitentis  se  habet,  quando  destruit  quod  fecerat." 
—Lyra  ad  1  Sam.  xv.  35. 


a  general  ground  and  reason  as  is  equally  exclusive  of  all  those  other 
passions  and  affections,  upon  whose  assignment  unto  God  the  whole 
strength  of  Mr  B/s  plea  against  the  prescience  of  God  doth  depend : 
1  Sam.  xv.  29,  "  Also  the  Strength  of  Israel  will  not  lie  nor  repent : 
for  he  is  not  a  man,  that  he  should  repent"  The  immutability  of  his 
nature,  and  unlikeness  to  men  in  obnoxiousness  to  alterations,  are  as 
serted  as  the  reason  of  his  not  repenting;  which  will  equally  extend  its 
force  and  efficacy  to  the  removal  from  him  of  all  the  other  human 
affections  mentioned.  And  this  second  general  consideration  of 
the  foundation  of  Mr  B/s  plea  is  sufficient  for  the  removal  of  the 

3.  I  desire  to  know  whether  indeed  it  is  only  the  free  actions  of 
men  that  are  not  yet  done  that  Mr  B.  denies  to  be  known  of  God, 
or  whether  he  excludes  him  not  also  from  the  knowledge  of  the  pre 
sent  state,  frame,  and  actings  of  the  hearts  of  men,  and  how  they  stand 
affected  towards  him,  being  therein  like  other  rulers  among  men,  who 
may  judge  of  the  good  and  evil  actions  of  men  so  far  as  they  are 
manifest  and  evident,  but  how  men  in  their  hearts  stand  affected  to 
them,  their  rule,  government,  and  authority,  they  know  not?  To  make 
this  inquiry,  I  have  not  only  the  observation  premised  from  the  words 
of  the  close  of  Mr  B/s  query  being  of  a  negative  importance  ("  Yea, 
that  there  are  such  actions"),  but  also  from  some  of  the  proofs  by 
him  produced  of  his  former  assertion  being  interpreted  according  to 
the  literal  significancy  of  the  words,  as  exclusive  of  any  figure,  which  he 
insisteth  on.  Of  this  sort  is  that  of  Gen.  xxii.  1,  2,  10-12,  where  God 
is  said  to  tempt  Abraham,1  and  upon  the  issue  of  that  trial  says  to  him 
(which  words  Mr  B.,  by  putting  them  in  a  different  character,  points 
to  as  comprehensive  of  what  he  intends  to  gather  and  conclude  from 
them),  "Now  I  know  that  thou  fearest  God,  seeing  thou  hast  not  with 
held  thy  son,  thine  only  son,  from  me."  The  conclusion  which  Mr  B. 
guides  unto  from  hence  is,  that  God  knew  not  that  which  he  inquired 
after,  and  therefore  tempted  Abraham  that  he  might  so  do,  and  upon 
the  issue  of  that  trial  says,  "Now  I  know."  But  what  was  it  that  God 
affirms  that  now  he  knew?  Not  any  thing  future,  not  any  free  ac 
tion  that  was  not  as  yet  done,  but  something  of  the  present  condition 
and  frame  of  his  heart  towards  God, — namely,,  his  fear  of  God  ;  not 
whether  he  would  fear  him,  but  whether  he  did  fear  him  then.  If 
this,  then,  be  properly  spoken  of  God,  and  really  as  to  the  nature  of 
the  thing  itself,  then  is  he  ignorant  no  less  of  things  present  than  of 
those  that  are  for  to  come.  He  knows  not  who  fears  him  nor  who 
hates  him,  unless  he  have  opportunity  to  try  them  in  some  such  way 
as  he  did  Abraham.  And  then  what  a  God  hath  this  man  deline- 

1  "  Ex  hac  actione  propter  quam  ab  omnibus  Devun  timens  vocaberis,  cognoscent 
omnes,  quantus  in  te  sit  timer  Dei,  et  quosque  pertingat." — R.  Mos.  Ben.  Maimon. 
More  Nevoch.  p.  3,  cap.  xxiv. 


ated  to  us!  How  like  the  dunghill  deities  of  the  heathen,  who  speak 
after  this  rate!1  Doubtless  the  description  that  Elijah  gave  of  Baal 
would  better  suit  him  than  any  of  those  divine  perfections  which 
the  living,  all-seeing  God  hath  described  himself  by.  But  now,  if  Mr 
B.  will  confess  that  God  knows  all  the  things  that  are  present,  and 
that  this  inquiry  after  the  present  frame  of  the  heart  and  spirit  of 
a  man  is  improperly  ascribed  to  him,  from  the  analogy  of  his  pro 
ceedings,  in  his  dealing  with  him,  to  that  which  we  insist  upon 
when  we  would  really  find  out  what  we  do  not  know,  then  I  would 
only  ask  of  him  why  those  other  expressions  which  he  mentions, 
looking  to  what  is  to  come,  being  of  the  same  nature  and  kind  with 
this,  do  not  admit  of,  yea  call  for,  the  same  kind  of  exposition  and 

Neither  is  this  the  only  place  insisted  on  by  Mr  B.  where  the 
inquiry  ascribed  unto  God,  and  the  trial  that  he  makes,  is  not  in 
reference  to  things  to  come,  but  punctually  to  what  is  present :  Deut. 
viii.  2,  xiii.  3,  "  The  LORD  your  God  proveth  you,  to  know  whether  ye 
love  the  LORD  your  God  with  all  your  heart  and  with  all  your  soul ;" 
2  Chron.  xxxii.  31,  "  God  left  him,  to  try  him,  that  he  might  know 
all  that  was  in  his  heart ;"  and  Phil.  iv.  6,  "  In  every  thing  let  your 
requests  be  made  known  unto  God."  Let  Mr  B.  tell  us  now  plainly 
whether  he  supposes  all  these  things  to  be  spoken  properly  of  God, 
and  that  indeed  God  knows  not  our  hearts,  the  frame  of  them,  nor 
what  in  them  we  desire  and  aim  at,  without  some  eminent  trial  and 
inquiry,  or  until  we  ourselves  do  make  known  what  is  in  them  unto 
him.  If  this  be  the  man's  mind  (as  it  must  be,  if  he  be  at  any  agree 
ment  with  himself  in  his  principles  concerning  these  scriptural  attri 
butions  unto  God),  for  my  part  I  shall  be  so  far  from  esteeming  him 
eminent  as  a  mere  Christian,  that  I  shall  scarcely  judge  him  com 
parable,  as  to  his  apprehensions  of  God,  unto  many  that  lived  and 
died  mere  Pagans.  To  this  sense  also  is  applied  that  property  of 
•God,  that  he  "trieth  the  hearts,"  as  it  is  urged  by  Mr  B.  from  1  Thess. 
ii.  4 ; — that  is,  he  maketh  inquiry  after  what  is  in  them ;  which,  but 
upon  search  and  trial,  he  knoweth  not !  By  what  ways  and  means 
God  accomplisheth  this  search,  and  whether  hereupon  he  comes  to 
a  perfect  understanding  of  our  hearts  or  no,  is  not  expressed.  John 
tells  us  that  "  God  is  greater  than  our  hearts,  and  knoweth  all 
things;"  and  we  have  thought  on  that  account  (with  that  of  such 
farther  discoveries  as  he  hath  made  of  himself  and  his  perfections 
unto  us)  that  he  had  been  said  to  search  our  hearts ;  not  that  himself, 
for  his  own  information,  needs  any  such  formal  process  by  way  of 
trial  and  inquiry,  but  because  really  and  indeed  he  doth  that  in 

1  "  Contigerat  nostras  infamia  temporis  aures : 
Quam  cupiens  falsam  summo  delabor  Olympo, 
Et  Deus  humana  lustro  sub  imagine  terras." — Oyid.  Met.  i.  211. 


himself  which  men  aim  at  in  the  accomplishment  of  their  most 
diligent  searches  and  exactest  trials. 

And  we  may,  by  the  way,  see  a  little  of  this  man's  consistency  with 
himself.  Christ  he  denies  to  be  God, — a  great  part  of  his  religion 
consists  in  that  negative, — yet  of  Christ  it  is  said  that  "  he  knew  all 
men,  and  needed  not  that  any  should  testify  of  man,  for  he  knew 
what  was  in  man,"  John  ii.  24,  25 :  and  this  is  spoken  in  reference  to 
that  very  thing  in  the  hearts  of  men  which  he  would  persuade  us 
that  God  knows  not  without  inquiry;  that  is,  upon  the  account  of  his 
not  committing  himself  to  those  as  true  believers  whom  yet,  upon  the 
account  of  the  profession  they  made,  the  Scripture  calls  so,  and  says 
they  "believed  in  his  name,  when  they  saw  the  miracles  which  he  did," 
verse  23.  Though  they  had  such  a  veil  of  profession  upon  them  that 
the  Holy  Ghost  would  have  us  esteem  them  as  believers,  yet  Christ 
could  look  through  it  into  their  hearts,  and  discover  and  know  their 
frame,  and  whether  in  sincerity  they  loved  him  and  believed  in  his 
name  or  no ;  but  this  God  cannot  do  without  inquiry !  And  yet  Christ 
(if  we  believe  Mr  B.)  was  but  a  mere  man,  as  he  is  a  "mere  Christian." 
Farther;  it  seems,  by  this  gentleman,  that  unless  "we  make  known 
our  requests  to  God,"  he  knows  not  what  we  will  ask.  Yet  we  ask 
nothing  but  what  is  in  our  thoughts ;  and  in  the  last  query  he  in 
structs  us  that  God  knows  our  thoughts, — and  doubtless  he  knows  Mr 
B.'s  to  be  but  folly.  Farther  yet ;  if  God  must  be  concluded  igno 
rant  of  our  desires,  because  we  are  bid  to  make  our  requests  known 
unto  him,  he  may  be  as  well  concluded  forgetful  of  what  himself  hath 
spoken,  because  he  bids  us  put  him  in  remembrance,  and  appoints 
some  to  be  his  remembrancers.  But  to  return : — 

This  is  the  aspect  of  almost  one-half  of  the  places  produced  by  Mr 
B.  towards  the  business  in  hand.  If  they  are.  properly  spoken  of 
God,  in  the  same  sense  as  they  are  of  man,  they  conclude  him  not 
to  know  things  present,  the  frame  of  the  heart  of  any  man  in  the 
world  towards  himself  and  his  fear,  nay,  the  outward,  open,  notorious 
actions  of  men.  So  it  is  in  that  place  of  Gen.  xviii.  21,  insisted  on  by 
Crellius,  one  of  Mr  B/s  great  masters,  "I  will  go  down  now,  and  see" 
(or  know)  "  whether  they  have  done  altogether  according  to  the  cry  of 
it,  which  is  come  unto  me."1  Yea,  the  places  which,  in  their  letter 
and  outward  appearance,  seem  to  ascribe  that  ignorance  of  things 
present  unto  God  are  far  more  express  and  numerous  than  those  that 
in  the  least  look  forward  to  what  is  yet  for  to  come,  or  was  so  at 

1  "  Nimis  longe  a  propria  verborum  significatione  recedendum  est,  et  sententiarum 
vis  enervanda,  si  eas  cum  definita  ilia  futiirorum  contingentium  proescientia  conciliarc 
veils,  ut  Gen.  xviii.  21,  xxii.  12.  Quicquid  enim  alias  de  utriusque  loci  sententia 
statuas.  illud  tamen  facile  est  cernere,  Deum  novum  quoddam,  et  insigne  experimen- 
tum,  illic  quidem  impietatis  Sodomiticse  et  Gomorrhsese,  videre  voluisse,  hie  vero 
pietatis  Abrahamicse  vidisse,  quod  antequam  fieret,  plane  certum  et  exploratum  non 
esset." — Crell.  de  Vera  Eelig.  cap.  xxiv.  p.  209. 


their  delivery.  This  progress,  then,  have  we  made  under  our  catechist, 
if  we  may  believe  him,  as  he  insinuates  his  notions  concerning  God : 
"  God  sits  in  heaven  (glistering  on  a  throne),  whereunto  he  is  limited, 
yea,  to  a  certain  place  therein,  so  as  not  to  be  elsewhere  ;  being 
grieved,  troubled,  and  perplexed  at  the  affairs  done  below  which  he 
doth  know,  making  inquiry  after  what  he  doth  not  know,  and  many 
things  (things  future)  he  knoweth  not  at  all." 

Before  I  proceed  to  the  farther  consideration  of  that  which  is 
eminently  and  expressly  denied  by  Mr  B.,  namely,  "  God's  fore 
knowledge  of  our  free  actions  that  are  future,"  because  many  of  his 
proofs,  in  the  sense  by  him  urged,  seem  to  exclude  him  from  an  ac 
quaintance  with  many  things  present, — as,  in  particular,  the  frame  and 
condition  of  the  hearts  of  men  towards  himself,  as  was  observed, — it 
may  not  be  amiss  a  little  to  confirm  that  perfection  of  the  knowledge 
of  God  as  to  those  things  from  the  Scripture ;  which  will  abundantly 
also  manifest  that  the  expressions  insisted  on  by  our  catechist  are 
metaphorical  and  improperly  ascribed  to  God.  Of  the  eminent  pre 
dictions  in  the  Scripture,  which  relate  unto  things  future,  I  shall 
speak  afterward.  He  knew,  for  he  foretold  the  flood,  the  destruction 
of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  the  famine  in  Egypt,  the  selling  and  exal 
tation  of  Joseph,  the  reign  of  David,  the  division  of  his  kingdom,  the 
Babylonish  captivity,  the  kingdom  of  Cyrus,  the  return  of  his  people, 
the  state  and  ruin  of  the  four  great  empires  of  the  world,  the  wars, 
plagues,  famines,  earthquakes,  divisions,  which  he  manifestly  foretold. 
But  farther,  he  knows  the  frame  of  the  hearts  of  men ;  he  knew  that 
the  Keilites  would  deliver  up  David  to  Saul  if  he  stayed  amongst 
them, — which  probably  they  knew  not  themselves,  1  Sam.  xxiii.  12 ;  he 
knew  that  Hazael  would  murder  women  and  infants,  which  he  knew 
not  himself,  2  Kings  viii.  12, 13;  he  knew  that  the  Egyptians  would 
afflict  his  people,  though  at  first  they  entertained  them  with  honour, 
Gen.  xv.  13  ;  he  knew  Abraham,  that  he  would  instruct  his  house 
hold,  chap,  xviii.  19;  he  knew  that  some  were  obstinate,  their  neck 
an  iron  sinew,  and  their  brow  brass,  Isa.  xlviii.  4  ;  he  knew  the  ima 
gination  or  figment  of  the  heart  of  his  people,  Deut.  xxxi.  21 ;  that  the 
church  of  Laodicea,  notwithstanding  her  profession,  was  lukewarm, 
neither  cold  nor  hot,  Rev.  iii.  15.  "  Man  looketh  on  the  outward  ap 
pearance,  but  the  LORD  looketh  on  the  heart,"  1  Sam.  xvi.  7.  "  He 
only  knoweth  the  hearts  of  all  the  children  of  men,"  1  Kings  viii.  39. 
"  Hell  and  destruction  are  before  the  LORD  :  how  much  more  then  the 
hearts  of  the  children  of  men?"  Prov.  xv.  11.  So  also  Prov.  xxiv.  12 ; 
Jer.  xvii.  9,  10;  Ezek.  xi.  5;  Pa  xxxviii.  9,  xciv.  11;  Job  xxxi.  4; 
Matt.  vi.  4,  6,  8;  Luke  xvi.  15;  Actsi.  24,  etc.  Innumerable  other 
places  to  this  purpose  may  be  insisted  on,  though  it  is  a  surprisal  to 
be  put  to  prove  that  God  knows  the  hearts  of  the  sons  of  men.  But 
to  proceed  to  that  which  is  more  directly  under  consideration : — 


The  sole  foundation  of  Mr  B/s  insinuation,  that  God  knows  not 
our  free  actions  that  are  future,  being  laid,  as  was  observed,  on  the 
assignation  of  fear,  repentance,  expectation,  and  conjecturing,  unto 
God,  the  consideration  which  hath  already  been  had  of  those  at 
tributions  in  the  Scripture  and  the  causes  of  them  is  abundantly 
sufficient  to  remove  it  out  of  the  way,  and  to  let  his  inference  sink 
thither  whence  it  came.  Doubtless  never  was  painter  so  injurious  to 
the  Deity  (who  limned  out  the  shape  of  an  old  man  on  a  cloth  or 
board,  and,  after  some  disputes  with  himself  whether  he  should  sell 
it  for  an  emblem  of  winter,  set  it  out  as  a  representation  of  God  the 
Father)  as  this  man  is  in  snatching  God's  own  pencil  out  of  his  hand, 
and  by  it  presenting  him  to  the  world  in  a  gross,  carnal,  deformed 
shape.  Plato  would  not  suffer  Homer  in  his  Commonwealth,  for 
intrenching  upon  the  imaginary  blessedness  of  their  dunghill  deities, 
making  Jupiter  to  grieve  for  the  death  of  Sarpedon,1  Mars  to  be 
wounded  by  Diomedes,  and  to  roar  thereupon  with  disputes  and 
conjectures  in  heaven  among  themselves  about  the  issue  of  the  Trojan 
war,3  though  he  endeavours  to  salve  all  his  heavenly  solecisms  by 
many  noble  expressions  concerning  purposes  not  unmeet  for  a  deity, 
telling  us,  in  the  close  and  issue  of  a  most  contingent  aftair,  A/oc  ds 
nXshro  jSouXjj.3  Let  that  man  think  of  how  much  sorer  punishment 
he  shall  be  thought  worthy  (I  speak  of  the  great  account  he  is  one 
day  to  make)  who  shall  persist  in  wresting  the  Scripture  to  his  own 
destruction,  to  represent  the  living  and  incomprehensible  God  unto 
the  world  trembling  with  fear,  pale  with  anger,  sordid  with  grief  and 
repentance,  perplexed  with  conjectures  and  various  expectations  of 
events,  and  making  a  diligent  inquiry  after  the  things  he  knows  not  ; 
that  is,  altogether  such  an  one  as  himself:  let  all  who  have  the  least 
reverence  of  and  acquaintance  with  that  Majesty  with  whom  we 
have  to  do  judge  and  determine.  But  of  these  things  before. 

The  proposure  of  a  question  to  succeed  in  the  room  of  that  remov 
ed,  with  a  scriptural  resolution  thereof,  in  order  to  a  discovery  of  what 
God  himself  hath  revealed  concerning  his  knowledge  of  all  things,  is 
the  next  part  of  our  employment.  Thus,  then,  it  may  be  framed  :  — 

Ques.  Doth  not  God  know  all  things,  whether  past,  present,  or  to 

1  Horn.  Iliad.  Rhapsod.  n.  ver.  431,  etc.  :  — 

Tati;  Js  t'Suv  i/.'fr.tri  Kpovotr  va.7;  KyxoKopnTlu. 
"jJtiv  St  •rofitift  .... 

»  Horn.  Iliad.  Rhapsod.  E.  ver.  859,  etc.  :  — 

-  i  S"  i£pa%t  x<ilxi/>s  "Aptis, 
"Off  fay  r  i*mti%iXt>t  iwiee%ov,  n  SEX 
'Avipif  iv  #o\ifttj>  ....  xafi^ire, 
&i7%iv  5'  ciftSfarar  eitfia  xarappiav 
Ka/  p   eXoipu  ofitvotf  x.  <r.  X. 

'Horn.  Iliad.  Rhapsod.  A.  in  princip. 


come,  all  the  ways  and  actions  of  men,  even  before  their  accomplish 
ment,  or  is  any  thing  hid  from  him  ?  What  says  the  Scripture 
properly  and  directly  hereunto  ? 

Ans.  "  God  is  greater  than  our  heart,  and  knoweth  all  things/' 

1  John  iii.  20.    "  Neither  is  there  any  creature  that  is  not  manifest  in 
his  sight :  but  all  things  are  naked  and  opened  unto  the  eyes  of  him 
with  whom  we  have  to  do,"  Heb.  iv.  13.  "The  LORD  is  a  God  of  know 
ledge/'  1  Sam.  ii.  3.    "  Thou  knowest  my  down-sitting  and  mine  up 
rising,  thou  understandest  my  thought  afar  off.     Thou  compassest  my 
path  and  my  lying  down,  and  art  acquainted  with  all  my  ways.   For 
there  is  not  a  word  in  my  tongue,  but,  lo,  O  LORD,  thou  knowest  it 
altogether,"  Ps.  cxxxix.  2-4.    "Great  is  our  Lord,  and  of  great  power: 
his  understanding  is  infinite,"  Ps.  cxlvii.  5.   "  Who  hath  directed  the 
Spirit  of  the  LORD,  or  being  his  counsellor  hath  taught  him?  "With 
whom  took  he  counsel,  and  who  instructed  him,  and  taught  him  in 
the  path  of  judgment,  and  taught  him  knowledge,  and  showed  to 
him  the  way  of  understanding?"  Isa.  xl.  13, 14.    "  There  is  no  search 
ing  of  his  understanding,"  verse  28.     Rom.  xi.  36,  "  Of  him  are  all 
things;"  and,  "  Known  unto  God  are  all  his  works  from  the  begin 
ning  of  the  world,"  Acts  xv.  18,  etc. 

Of  the  undeniable  evidence  and  conviction  of  God's  prescience  or 
foreknowledge  of  future  contingents,  from  his  prediction  of  their 
coming  to  pass,  with  other  demonstrations  of  the  truth  under  con 
sideration,  attended  with  their  several  testimonies  from  Scripture, 
the  close  of  this  discourse  will  give  a  farther  account. 

It  remains  only  that,  according  to  the  way  and  method  formerly 
insisted  on,  I  give  some  farther  account  of  the  perfection  of  God 
pleaded  for,  with  the  arguments  wherewith  it  is  farther  evidenced 
to  us,  and  so  to  proceed  to  what  followeth : — 

1.  That  knowledge  is  proper  to  God,  the  testimony  of  the  Scrip 
ture  unto  the  excellency  and  perfection  of  the  thing  itself  doth  suf 
ficiently  evince.1  "  I  cannot  tell,"  says  the  apostle  :  "God  knoweth," 

2  Cor.  xii.  2,  3.     It  is  the  general  voice  of  nature,  upon  relation  of 
any  thing  that  to  us  is  hid  and  unknown,  that  the  apostle  there 
makes  mention  of :  "  God  knoweth."     That  he  knoweth  the  things 
that  are  past,  Mr  B.  doth  not  question.     That  at  least  also  some 
things  that  are  present,  yea  some  thoughts  of  our  hearts,  are  known 
to  him,  he  doth  not  deny.     It  is  not  my  intendment  to  engage  in 
any  curious  scholastical  discourse  about  the  understanding,  science, 

1  "  Intellectio  secundum  se  ejus  est,  quod  secundum  se  optimum  est." — Julius  Petro- 
nellus,  lib.  iii.  cap.  iv.  ex  Arist.  Metaph.  lib.  xii.  cap.  vii.  "  Sed  et  intellectum  duplicem 
video ;  alter  enim  intelligere  potest,  quamvis  non  intelligat,  alter  etiam  intelligit 
qui  tamen  nondum  est  perfectus,  nisi  et  semper  intelligat,  et  omnia ;  et  ille  demum 
absolutissimus  futurus  sit,  qui  et  semper,  et  omnia,  et  simul  intelligat." — Maxim. 
Tyrius,  dissert.  1. 

"  Uno  mentis  cernit  in  ictu 
-     .Quae  sint,  quse  fuerint,  veniantque." — Booth. 


knowledge,  or  wisdom  of  God,  nor  of  the  way  of  God's  knowing 
things  in  and  by  his  own  essence,  through  simple  intuition.  That 
which  directly  is  opposed  is  his  knowledge  of  our  free  actions,  which, 
in  respect  of  their  second  and  mediate  causes,  may  or  may  not  be. 
This,  therefore,  I  shall  briefly  explain,  and  confirm  the  truth  of  it 
by  Scripture  testimonies  and  arguments  from  right  reason,  not  to  be 
evaded  without  making  head  against  all  God's  infinite  perfections, 
having  already  demonstrated  that  all  that  which  is  insisted  on  by 
Mr  B.  to  oppose  it  is  spoken  metaphorically  and  improperly  of  God. 

That  God  doth  foresee  all  future  things  was  amongst  mere  Pagans 
so  acknowledged  as  to  be  looked  on  as  a  common  notion  of  mankind.1 
So  Xenophon  tells  us,  "  That  both  Grecians  and  barbarians  consented 
in  this,  that  the  gods  knew  all  things,  present  and  to  come."  a  And 
it  may  be  worth  our  observation,  that  whereas  Crellius,  one  of  the 
most  learned  of  this  gentleman's  masters,  distinguished  between 
effofAtva  and  /ilXXovra,  affirming  that  God  knows  ra  efffatva,  which, 
though  future,  are  necessarily  so,  yet  he  knows  not  ra.  psXXovra, 
which  are  only,  says  he,  likely  so  to  be.8  Xenophon  plainly  affirms 
that  all  nations  consent  that  he  knows  ra  /AsXXoira.  "And  this  know 
ledge  of  his,"  saith  that  great  philosopher,  "  is  the  foundation  of  the 
prayers  and  supplications  of  men  for  the  obtaining  of  good  or  the 
avoiding  of  evil."  Now,  that  one  calling  himself  a  "  mere  Christian" 
should  oppose  a  perfection  of  God  that  a  mere  Pagan  affirms  all  the 
world  to  acknowledge  to  be  in  him  would  seem  somewhat  strange, 
but  that  we  know  all  things  do  not  answer  or  make  good  the  names 
whereby  they  are  called. 

For  the  clearer  handling  of  the  matter  under  consideration,  the 
terms  wherein  it  is  proposed  are  a  little  to  be  explained  :  — 

1.  That  prescience  or  foreknowledge  is  attributed  to  God,  the 
Scripture  testifieth.  Acts  ii.  23,  Rom.  viii.  29,  xi.  2,  1  Pet.  L  2,  are 

*  T/  Si  / 

KaffopSy,  S4i>  eiSvffty,  —  JEschyL  Supp.  1071,  2. 
£ix.'ill  at  ftai  0  xct\i  ;[£<.•»  Qifftor,  aVavaroy  <rs   tivxi  xcci    volTy  vtiyrx,  xal   opxv,  xau    dxauuv, 

xa.}  ti'Stva/,  va.  ovra,  xat  TO.  /KiXXavT*  irtrlleti.  —  Hippoc.  de  Princip.     To  the  same  pur 

pose  is  that  of  EjiicliarniUS,  OiStv   ix^ivyu  TO  &l~ay,  a.lro;  Iff  it.ft.ay   Ifoirrccs,  etc.      And 

the  anonymous  author  in  Stobeeus  (vid.  Excerpta  Stobaei,  p.  117),  speaking  of  God,  adds, 

"Ov  ev$i  if;  X'tXr,(iv  ayJ«  11  troiuv,  oil)'  0,1  tr/iivfuv,  ev^t  ftToinxu;  waXar  o  $t  trapuv  aira>ra%i>u, 

v&ir  i|  avayxus  «73«,  etc.  In  short,  the  Pagans'  generally  received  custom  of  consult 
ing  oracles,  of  using  their  eiavaffxa-iria,  their  auguria  and  auspicia,  etc.,  by  which  they 
expected  answers  from  their  gods,  and  significations  of  their  will  concerning  future  things, 
are  evident  demonstrations  that  they  believed  their  gods  knew  future  contingents. 

1  Ouxavt  us  /ttJ»  Kaii  "EXX»»lf  *«/  fieifGapei  rav;  S-ttls  tiyouira.!  •teivrtt,  itiitai,  TO.  n  tttra  xa.t 
TO.  p-iXXaira,  iwS>jX«».  Tleiftti  yavi  0.1  •rclus  KO.I  •ff/itTit  TO.  tUtn  S<«  ftxvrtxr,;  ivipuTuffi  TOV; 
Stov;,  ri  <ri  xpYi  xxi  <ri  ov  %p)i  vroitli.  Ka}  (triv  on  yep.i%efi.iv  y\  $v>o,<r0at  avrous  xa.}  tu  xeci 
xaxut  irtitiiv,  xeci  nora  tra$if.  Harris  y>ut  atrouvrai  revs  Stoiis,  ret  pit  0au>.a  a.farfi-rui, 
Ta.ya.6it  <n  ta'oitti,  Ourai  roivuv  el  iroivrK  p.\t  titans,  *•  r.  X.  Ata  3i  rt  XfitiVua.i,  xxi  o  n  t% 
txdfrau  draGtitrtTtti,  x.  T.  X.^Xenoph.  2TMIIO2.  Cap.  iv.  47. 

*  "  Cum  ergo  Deus  omnia  prout  reipsa  se  habent  cognoscat,  to-^iva  seu  certo  futura 
cognoscit  ut  talia,  similiter  et  /tttXXovTa  ut  ^£XX«VT«,  seu  verisimiliter  eventura,  pro 
ratione  causarum  uade  pendent."  —  CrelL  de  Vera  Relig.  lib.  i.  cap.  xxiv.  p.  201. 


proofs  hereof.  The  term,  indeed  (foreknowing),  rather  relates  to  the 
things  known,  and  the  order  wherein  they  stand  one  to  another  and 
among  themselves,  than  is  properly  expressive  of  God's  knowledge. 
God  knows  all  things  as  they  are,  and  in  that  order  wherein  they 
stand.  Things  that  are  past,  as  to  the  order  of  the  creatures  which 
he  hath  appointed  to  them,  and  the  works  of  providence  which  out- 
Avardly  are  of  him,  he  knows  as  past ;  not  by  remembrance,  as  we  do, 
but  by  the  same  act  of  knowledge  wherewith  he  knew  them  from  all 
eternity,  even  before  they  were.1  Their  existence  in  time  and  being, 
cast  by  the  successive  motion  of  things  into  the  number  of  the  things 
that  are  past,  denotes  an  alteration  in  them,  but  not  at  all  in  the 
knowledge  of  God.  So  it  is  also  in  respect  of  things  future.  God 
knows  them  in  that  esse  intelligibile  which  they  have,  as  they  may 
be  known  and  understood ;  and  how  that  is  shall  afterward  be 
declared.  He  sees  and  knows  them  as  they  are,  when  they  have 
that  respect  upon  them  of  being  future  ;  when  they  lose  this  respect, 
by  their  actual  existence,  he  knows  them  still  as  before.  They  are 
altered ;  his  knowledge,  his  understanding  is  infinite,  and  changeth 

2.  God's  knowledge  of  things  is  either  of  simple  intelligence  (as 
usually  it  is  phrased)  or  of  vision!'  The  first  is  his  knowledge  of  all 
possible  things  ;  that  is,  of  all  that  he  himself  can  do.  That  God 
knows  himself  I  suppose  will  not  be  denied.  An  infinite  understand 
ing  knows  throughly  all  infinite  perfections.  God,  then,  knows  his  own 
power  or  omnipotency,  and  thereby  knows  all  that  he  can  do.  Infinite 
science  must  know,  as  I  said,  what  infinite  power  can  extend  unto. 
Now,  whatever  God  can  do  is  possible  to  be  done ;  that  is,  whatever 
hath  not  in  itself  a  repugnancy  to  being.  Now,  that  many  things 
may  be  done  by  the  power  of  God  that  yet  are  not,  nor  ever  shall 
be  done,  I  suppose  is  not  denied.  Might  he  not  make  a  new  world  ? 
Hence  ariseth  the  attribution  of  the  knowledge  of  simple  intelligence 
before  mentioned  unto  God.  In  his  own  infinite  understanding  he 
sees  and  knows  all  things  that  are  possible  to  be  done  by  his  power, 
would  his  good  pleasure  concur  to  their  production. 

Of  the  world  of  things  possible  which   God  can  do,  some  things, 

1  "  Sciendum,  quod  omnino  aliter  se  habet  antiqua  vel  seterna  scientia  ad  ea  quae  fiunt 
et  facta  sunt,  et  aliter  recens  scientia  :  esse  namque  rei  entis  est  causa  scientiae  nostrse, 
scientia  vero  seterna  est  causa  ut  ipsa  res  sit.     Si  vero  quando  res  est  postquam  non 
erat,  contingeret  noviter  in  ipsa  scientia  antiqua,  scientia  superaddita,  quemadmodum 
contingit  hoc  in  scientia  nova,  sequeretur  utique  quod  ipsa  scientia   antiqua  esset 
causata  ab  ipso  ente :  et  non  esset  causa  ipsius,  oportet  ergo  quod  non  contingat  ib> 
mutatio,    scilicet  in  antiqua  scientia,    quemadmodum    contingit  in   nova :  sciendum 
autem,  quod  hie  error  idcirco  accidit,  quia  scientia  antiqua  mensuratur  ab  imperitis 
cum   scientia  nova,   cujus  mensurationis  modus  vitiosissimus   est :  projicit    quippe 
quandoque  hominem  in  barathrum,  undo  nunquam  est  egressurus." — Rab.  Aben.  Host. 
Interpret.  Raymund.  Martin.  Pugi.  Fidei.  P.  P.,  cap.  xxv.  sect.  4,  5,  p.  201. 

2  "  In  Deo  simplex  est  intuitus,  quo  simpliciter  videntur  quae  composita  sunt,  inva- 
riabiliter  quae  variabilia  sunt,  et  siinul  quae  successiva." 


even  all  that  he  pleaseth,  are  future*  The  creation  itself,  and  all 
things  that  have  had  a  being  since,  were  so  future  before  their 
creation.  Had  they  not  some  time  been  future,  they  had  never 
been.  Whatever  is,  was  to  be  before  it  was.  All  things  that  shall 
be  to  the  end  of  the  world  are  now  future.  How  things  which  were 
only  possible,  in  relation  to  the  power  of  God,  come  to  be  future,  and 
in  what  respect,  shall  be  briefly  mentioned.  These  things  God 
knoweth  also.  His  science  of  them  is  called  of  vision.  He  sees 
them  as  things  which,  in  their  proper  order,  shall  exist.  In  a  word, 
"  scientia  visionis,"  and  "simplicis  intelligentise,"  may  be  considered 
in  a  threefold  relation  ;  that  is,  "in  ordine  ad  objectum,  mensuram, 
modum:" — (1.)  "  Scientia  visionis"  hath  for  its  object  things  past, 
present,  and  to  come, — whatsoever  had,  hath,  or  will  have,  actual 
being.  The  measure  of  this  knowledge  is  his  will ;  because  the  will 
and  decree  of  God  only  make  those  things  future  which  were  but  pos 
sible  before :  therefore  we  say,  "  Scientia  visionis  fundatur  in  volun- 
tate."  For  the  manner  of  it,  it  is  called  "  Scientia  libera,  quia  funda 
tur  in  voluntate,"  as  necessarily  presupposing  a  free  act  of  the  divine 
will,  which  makes  things  future,  and  so  objects  of  this  kind  of 
knowledge.  (2.)  As  for  that  "  scientia "  which  we  call  "  simplicis 
intelligentise,"  the  object  of  it  is  possible;  the  measure  of  it  omnipo- 
tency,  for  by  it  he  knows  all  he  can  do  ;  and  for  the  manner  of  it, 
it  is  "  scientia  necessaria,  quia  non  fundatur  in  voluntate,  sed  potes- 
tate  "  (say  the  schoolmen),  seeing  by  it  he  knows  not  what  he  will, 
but  what  he  can  do.  Of  that  late  figment  of  a  middle  science  in 
God,  arising  neither  from  the  infinite  perfection  of  his  own  being, 
as  that  of  simple  intelligence,  nor  yet  attending  his  free  purpose  and 
decree,  as  that  of  vision,  but  from  a  consideration  of  the  second 
causes  that  are  to  produce  the  things  foreknown,  in  their  kind, 
order,  and  dependence,  I  am  not  now  to  treat.  And  with  the  for 
mer  kind  of  knowledge  it  is,  or  rather  in  the  former  way  (the  know 
ledge  of  God  being  simply  one  and  the  same)  is  it,  that  we  affirm 
him  to  know  the  things  that  are  future,  of  what  sort  soever,  or  all 
things  before  they  come  to  pass. 

3.  The  things  inquired  after  are  commonly  called  contingent. 
Contingencies  are  of  two  sorts : — (1.)  Such  as  are  only  so ;  (2.) 
Such  as  are  also  free. 

(1.)  Such  as  are  only  so  are  contingent  only  in  their  effects:  such 
is  the  falling  of  a  stone  from  a  house,  and  the  killing  of  a  man  thereby. 
The  effect  itself  was  contingent,  nothing  more  ;  the  cause  necessary, 
the  stone,  being  loosed  from  what  detained  it  upon  the  house,  by  its 
own  weight  necessarily  falling  to  the  ground.  (2.)  That  which  is  so 
contingent  as  to  be  also  free,  is  contingent  both  in  respect  of  the 

1  "Ad  hanc  legem  animus  noster  aptandus  est,  hanc  sequatur,  huic  parcat,  et  quse- 
cunque  fiunt,  dcbuisse  fieri  putet." — Senec.  Ep.  108. 


effect  and  of  its  causes  also.  Such  was  the  soldier's  piercing  of  the 
side  of  Christ.  The  effect  was  contingent, — such  a  thing  might  have 
been  done  or  not ;  and  the  cause  also,  for  they  chose  to  do  it  who 
did  it,  and  in  respect  of  their  own  elective  faculty  might  not  have 
chosen  it.  That  a  man  shall  write,  or  ride,  or  speak  to  another  per 
son  to-morrow,  the  agent  being  free,  is  contingent  both  as  to  the  cause 
and  to  the  effect.  About  these  is  our  principal  inquiry;  and  to  the 
knowledge  of  God  which  he  is  said  to  have  of  them  is  the  opposition 
most  expressly  made  by  Mr  B.  Let  this,  then,  be  our  conclusion: — 

God  perfectly  knows  all  the  free  actions  of  men  before  they  are 
wrought  by  them.1  All  things  that  will  be  done  or  shall  be  to  all 
eternity,  though  in  their  own  natures  contingent  and  wrought  by 
agents  free  in  their  working,  are  known  to  him  from  eternity. 

Some  previous  observations  will  make  way  for  the  clear  proof  and 
demonstration  of  this  truth.  Then, — 

1.  God  certainly  knows  everything  that  is  to  be  known  ;  that  is, 
everything  that  is  scibile.      If  there  be  in  the  nature  of  things  an 
impossibility  to  be  known,  they  cannot  be  known  by  the  divine 
understanding.     If  any  thing  be  scibile,  or  may  be  known,  the  not 
knowing  of  it  is  his  imperfection  who  knows  it  not.      To  God  this 
cannot  be  ascribed  (namely,  that  he  should  not  know  what  is  to  be 
known)  without  the  destruction  of  his  perfection.     He  shall  not  be 
my  God  who  is  not  infinitely  perfect.     He  who  wants  any  thing  to 
make  him  blessed  in  himself  can  never  make  the  fruition  of  himself 
the  blessedness  of  others. 

2.  Every  thing  that  hath  a  determinate  cause  is  scibile,  may  be 
known,  though  future,  by  him  that  perfectly  knows  that  cause  which 
doth  so  determine  the  thing  to  be  known  unto  existence.     Now,  con 
tingent  things,  the  free  actions  of  men  that  yet  are  not,  but  in  respect 
of  themselves  may  or  may  not  be,  have  such  a  determinate  cause 
of  their  existence  as  that  mentioned.     It  is  true,  in  respect  of  their 
immediate  causes,  as  the  wills  of  men,  they  are  contingent,  and  may 
be  or  not  be ;  but  that  they  have  such  a  cause  as  before  spoken  of  is 
evident  from  the  light  of  this  consideration  :   in  their  own  time  and 
order  they  are.     Now,  whatever  is  at  any  time  was  future  ;  before 
it  was,  it  was  to  be.     If  it  had  not  been  future,  it  had  not  now  been. 
Its  present  performance  is  sufficient  demonstration  of  the  futurition 
it  had  before.     I  ask,  then,  whence  it  came  to  be  future, — that  that 
action  was  rather  to  be  than  a  thousand  others  that  were  as  possible 
as  it  ?  for  instance,  that  the  side  of  Christ  should  be  pierced  with 

i  "  Dixit  R.  Juchanan :  Omnia  videntur  uno  intuitu.  Dixit  Rab.  Nachman  filius 
Isaac! :  Sic  etiam  nos  didicimus;  quod  scriptum  est  Ps.  xxxiii.  15,  Formans  simul 
cor  eorum,  inteUigens  omnia  opera  eorum  :  quomodo  intelligendum  est  ?  Dicendum  est, 
dici,  Deuni  adunare  simul  corda  totius  mundi  ?  Ecce,  videmus  non  ita  rem  se  habere : 
sed  sic  dicendum  est,  Formans  sive  Creator  videt  simul  cor  eorum,  et  intelliget  omnia 
opera  eorum." — Talmud.  Rosch.  Haschana :  interpret.  Joseph,  de  Voysin. 

VOL.  XII.  9 


a  spear,  when  it  was  as  possible,  in  the  nature  of  the  thing  itself  and 
of  all  secondary  causes,  that  his  head  should  be  cut  off.  That,  then, 
which  gives  any  action  a  futuritiou  is  that  determinate  cause 
wherein  it  may  be  known,  whereof  we  speak.  Thus  it  may  be  said 
of  the  same  thing  that  it  is  contingent  and  determined,  without  the 
least  appearance  of  contradiction,  because  it  is  not  spoken  with  re 
spect  to  the  same  things  or  causes. 

3.  The  determinate  cause  of  contingent  things,  that  is,  things  that 
are  future  (for  every  thing  when  it  is,  and  as  it  is,  is  necessary),1  is 
the  will  of  God  himself  concerning  their  existence  and  being ;  either 
by  his  efficiency  and  working,  as  all  good  things  in  every  kind  (that 
is,  that  are  either  morally  or  physically  so,  in  which  latter  sense  all 
the  actions  of  men,  as  actions,  are  so) ;  or  by  his  permission,  which  is 
the  condition  of  things  morally  evil,  or  of  the  irregularity  and  obli 
quity  attending  those  actions,  upon  the  account  of  their  relation  to  a 
law,  which  in  themselves  are  entitative  and  physically  good,  as  the 
things  were  which  God  at  first  created.3  Whether  any  thing  come 
to  pass  beside  the  will  of  God  and  contrary  to  his  purpose  will  not 
be  disputed  with  any  advantage  of  glory  to  God  or  honour  to  them 
that  shall  assert  it.3  That  in  all  events  the  will  of  God  is  fulfilled 
is  a  common  notion  of  all  rational  creatures.  So  the  accomplish 
ment  of  his  "determinate  counsel"  is  affirmed  by  the  apostle  in  the 
issue  of  that  mysterious  dispensation  of  the  crucifying  of  his  Son. 
That  of  James  iv.  15,  'Edv  6  Kupios  Stuffy,  intimates  God's  will  to  be 
extended  to  all  actions,  as  actions,  whatever.  Thus  God  knew  be 
fore  the  world  was  made,  or  any  thing  that  is  in  it,  that  there  would 
be  such  a  world  and  such  things  in  it ;  yet  than  the  making  of  the 
world  nothing  was  more  free  or  contingent.4  God  is  not  a  necessary 
agent  as  to  any  of  the  works  that  outwardly  are  of  him.  Whence, 
then,  did  God  know  this  ?  Was  it  not  from  his  own  decree  and 
eternal  purpose  that  such  a  world  there  should  be  ?  And  if  the 
knowledge  of  one  contingent  thing  be  from  hence,  why  not  of  all  ? 
In  brief,  these  future  contingencies  depend  on  something  for  their 
existence,  or  they  come  forth  into  the  world  in  their  own  strength 
and  upon  their  own  account,  not  depending  on  any  other.  If  the 
latter,  they  are  God ;  if  the  former,  the  will  of  God  or  old  Fortune 
must  be  the  principle  on  which  they  do  depend. 

1  "  Quicquid  enim  est,  dum  est,  necessario  est." — Aquinas  1.  part,  quaest.  19,  art.  3. 

1  Vide  Scot,  in  1  lib.  Sent.  dist.  39,  quaest.  unica ;  Durand  ibid.  dist.  38,  quaest.  3; 
Jo.  Major  in  1,  dist.  38,  39,  quaest.  1,  art.  4;  Alvarez  deAuxiliis.  lib.  ii.  disput.  10,  p. 
65,  etc. ;  et  Scholasticos  in  Lombardum  ibid.  dist.  38,  39  ;  quos  fuse  enumerat  Job. 
Martines  de  Ripalda  in  1  Sent.  p.  127  et  131. 

'  "  Quid  mihi  scire  quae  futura  sunt  ?  Quaecunque  ille  vult,  haec  futura  sunt." — 
Origen.  Horn.  6,  in  Jesum  Nave.  Vid.  Freder.  Spanhemium  Dub.  Evang.  33,  p.  272, 
in  illud  Matth.  "  Totum  hoc  factum  est,  "»a  •x-z.vput)*  TO  fatit  v#o  mv  Kvfiou."  Paul.  Fer- 
rium  Scbol.  Orthodox!,  cap.  xxxi. ;  et  in  Vindiciis.  cap.  v.  sect.  6. 

4  Vide  Aquinat.  1,  queest.  83,  art.  1,  ad  3. 


4.  God  can  work  with  contingent  causes  for  the  accomplishment 
of  his  own  will  and  purposes,  without  the  least  prejudice  to  them, 
either  as  causes  or  as  free  and  contingent.     God  moves  not,  works 
not,  in  or  with  any  second  causes,  to  the  producing  of  any  effect 
contrary  or  not  agreeable  to  their  own  natures.      Notwithstanding 
any  predetermination  or  operation  of  God,  the  wills  of  men,  in  the 
production  of  every  one  of  their  actions,  are  at  as  perfect  liberty  as 
a  cause  in  dependence  of  another  is  capable  of.     To  say  it  is  not  in 
dependence  is  atheism.      The  purpose  of  God,  the  counsel  of  his 
will,  concerning  any  thing  as  to  its  existence,  gives  a  necessity  of  in 
fallibility  to  the  event,  but  changes  not  the  manner  of  the  second 
cause's  operation,  be  [it]  what  it  will.1     That  God  cannot  accomplish 
and  bring  about  his  own  purposes  by  free  and  contingent  agents, 
without  the  destruction  of  the  natures  he  hath  endued  them  withal, 
is  a  figment  unworthy  the  thoughts  of  any  who  indeed  acknowledge 
his  sovereignty  and  power. 

5.  The  reason  why  Mr  B/s  companions  in  his  undertaking,  as 
others  that  went  before  him  of  the  same  mind,  do  deny  this  fore 
knowledge  of  God,  they  express  on  all  occasions  to  be  that  the 
granting  of  it  is  prejudicial  to  that  absolutely  independent  liberty  of 
will  which  God  assigns  to  men :  so  Socinus  pleads,  Praslect.  Theol. 
cap.  viii. ;  thus  far,  I  confess,  more  accurately  than  the  Arminians. 3 
These  pretend  (some  of  them,  at  least)  to  grant  the  prescience  of  God, 
but  yet  deny  his  determinate  decrees  and  purposes,  on  the  same  pre 
tence  that  the  others  do  his  prescience,  namely,  of  their  prejudicial- 
ness  to  the  free-will  of  man.      Socinus  discourses  (which  was  no 
difficult  task)  that  the  foreknowledge  of  God  is  as  inconsistent  with 
that  independent  liberty  of  will  and  contingency  which  he  and  they 
had  fancied  as  the  predetermination  of  his  will;  and  therefore  rejects 
the  former  as  well  as  the  latter.     It  was  Augustine's  complaint  of 
old  concerning  Cicero,  that  "  ita  fecit  homines  liberos,  ut  fecit  etiarn. 
sacrileges."3     Cicero  was  a  mere  Pagan,  and  surely  our  complaint 

1  Vide  Didac.  Alvarez,  de  Auxiliis  Gratise,  lib.  iii.  disput.  25,  Aquinat.  part.  2, 
qujBst.  112,  art.  3,  E.  1.  Part,  qusest.  19,  art.  8,  ad  3. 

3  Crell.  de  Vera  Relig.  lib.  i.  cap.  xxiv.     Smalc.  ad  Franz,  disput.  12. 

8  "  In  has  angustias  Cicero  coarctat  animum  religiosum,  ut  unum  eligat  e  duobus, 
— aut  esse  aliquid  in  nostra  voluntate,  aut  esse  prsescientiam  futurorum :  quoniam 
utrumque  arbitratur  esse  non  posse,  sed  si  alterum  confirmatur,  alterum  tolli :  si 
elegerimus  prsescientiam  futurorum,  tolli  voluntatis  arbitrium :  si  elegerimus  volun- 
tatis  arbitrium,  tolli  prsescientiam  futurorum.  Ipse  itaque  ut  vir  magnus  et  doctus, 
et  vitse  humanse  plurimum  et  peritissime  consulens,  ex  his  duobus  elegit  liberum  vo 
luntatis  arbitrium.  Quod  ut  confirmaretur,  negavit  prsescientiam  futurorum,  atquo 
ita  dum  vult  facere  liberos,  facit  sacrileges.  Religiosus  autem  animus  utrumque  eligit, 
utrumque  confitetur,  et  fide  pietatis  utrumque  confirmat.  Quomodo  inquit :  Nam  si 
est  prsescientia  futurorum,  sequuntur  ilia  omnia,  quse  connexa  sunt,  donee  eo  perveni- 
atur,  ut  nihil  sit  in  nostra  voluntate.  Porro,  si  est  aliquid  in  nostra  voluntate,  eisdem 
recursis  gradibus  eo  pervenitur,  ut  non  sit  prsescientia  futurorum.  Nam  per  ilia  omnia 
sic  recurritur.  Si  est  voluntatis  arbitrium,  non  omnia  fato  fiunt.  Si  non  omnia  fato 
fiunt,  non  est  omnium  certua  ordo  causarum.  Si  certus  causarum  ordo  non  est :  neo 


against  any  that  shall  close  with  him  in  this  attempt,  under  the 
name  of  a  "mere  Christian,"  will  not  be  less  just  than  that  of  Augus 
tine.  For  mine  own  part,  I  am  fully  resolved  that  all  the  liberty 
and  freedom  that,  as  creatures,  we  are  capable  of  is  eminently  con 
sistent  with  God's  absolute  decrees  and  infallible  foreknowledge; 
and  if  I  should  hesitate  in  the  apprehension  thereof,  I  had  rather 
ten  thousand  times  deny  our  wills  to  be  free  than  God  to  be  omni 
scient,  the  sovereign  disposer  of  all  men,  their  actions,  and  concern 
ments,  or  say  that  any  thing  comes  to  pass  without,  against,  or  con 
trary  to  the  counsel  of  his  will.  But  we  know,  through  the  good 
ness  of  God,  that  these  things  have  their  consistency,  and  that  God 
may  have  preserved  to  him  the  glory  of  his  infinite  perfection,  and 
the  will  of  man  not  at  all  be  abridged  of  its  due  and  proper  liberty. 

These  things  being  premised,  the  proof  and  demonstration  of  the 
truth  proposed  lies  ready  at  hand  in  the  ensuing  particulars : — 

1.  He  who  knows  all  things  knows  the  things  that  are  future, 
though  contingent.1  In  saying  they  are  things  future  and  contingent, 
you  grant  them  to  be  among  the  number  of  things,  as  you  do  those 
which  you  call  things  past ;  but  that  God  knows  all  things  hath 
already  been  abundantly  confirmed  out  of  Scripture.  Let  the  reader 
look  back  on  some  of  the  many  texts  and  places  by  which  T  gave 
answer  to  the  query  about  the  foreknowledge  of  God,  and  he  will 
find  abundantly  enough  for  his  satisfaction,  if  he  be  of  those  that 
would  be  satisfied,  and  dares  not  carelessly  make  bold  to  trample 
upon  the  perfections  of  God.  Take  some  few  of  them  to  a  review  : 
1  John  iii.  20,  "  God  is  greater  than  our  heart,  and  knoweth  all 
things."  Even  we  know  things  past  and  present.  If  God  knows 
only  things  of  the  same  kind,  his  knowledge  may  be  greater  than 
ours  by  many  degrees,  but  you  cannot  say  his  understanding  is  in 
finite  ;  there  is  not,  on  that  supposition,  an  infinite  distance  between 
his  knowledge  and  ours,  but  they  stand  in  some  measurable  propor 
tion.  Heb.  iv.  13,  "All  things  are  naked  and  opened  unto  the  eyes  of 
him  with  whom  we  have  to  do."  "Not  that  which  is  to  come,  not  the 
free  actions  of  men  that  are  future,"  saith  Mr  B.  But  to  distinguish 
thus  when  the  Scripture  doth  not  distinguish,  and  that  to  the  great 
dishonour  of  God,  is  not  to  interpret  the  word,  but  to  deny  it.  Acts 

remm  certus  est  ordo  praescienti  Deo,  quaB  fieri  non  possunt  nisi  prsecedentibus,  et 
efficientibus  causis.  Si  rerum  ordo  praescienti  Deo  certus  non  est,  non  omnia  sic  veni- 
unt,  ut  ea  ventura  praescivit.  Porro,  si  non  omnia  sic  eveniunt  ut  ab  illo  eventura 
praescita  sunt,  non  est,  inquit  in  Deo  praescientia  futurorum.  Nos  adversus  istos 
sacrileges  ausus,  et  hnpios,  et  Deum  dicimus  omnia  scirc  antequam  fiant ;  et  voluntate 
nos  facere,  quicquid  a  nobis  non  nisi  volentibus  fieri  sentimus  et  novimus." — August, 
de  Civit.  Dei,  lib.  v.  cap.  ix. 

.  l  "  Causam  quare  Deus  futura  contingentia  prsesciat  damus  hanc,  quod  sit  infinita 
ipsius  intellectus  perfectio  omnia  cognoscentis.  Et  sicut  Deus  cognoscit  praeterita 
fsecundum  esse  quod  habuerunt,  ita  etiam  cognoscit  futura  secundum  illud  esse  quod 
Wbitura  sunt."— Dan.  Clasen.  Theol.  Natural,  cap.  xxii.  p.  128. 


xv.  18,  "  Known  unto  God  are  all  his  works  from  the  beginning  of 
the  world."  I  ask,  whether  God  hath  any  thing  to  do  in  the  free 
actions  of  men  ?  For  instance,  had  he  any  thing  to  do  in  the  send 
ing  of  Joseph  into  Egypt,  his  exaltation  there,  and  the  entertainment 
of  his  father's  household  afterward  by  him  in  his  greatness  and 
power  ?  all  which  were  brought  about  by  innumerable  contingencies 
and  free  actions  of  men.  If  he  had  not,  why  should  we  any  longer 
depend  on  him,  or  regard  him  in  the  several  transactions  and  con 
cernments  of  our  lives  ? 

"  N\illum  numen  abest,1  si  sit  prudentia :  nos  te, 
Nos  facimus,  Fortuna,  Deam." 

If  he  had  to  do  with  it,  as  Joseph  thought  he  had,  when  he  affirmed 
plainly  that  "  God  sent  him  thither,  and  made  him  a  father  to  Pha 
raoh  and  his  house,"  Gen.  xlv.  5-8,  then  the  whole  was  known  to  God 
before,  for  "  Known  unto  God  are  all  his  works  from  the  beginning 
of  the  world."  And  if  God  may  know  any  one  free  action  before 
hand,  he  may  know  all,  for  there  is  the  same  reason  of  them  all. 
Their  contingency  is  given  as  the  only  cause  why  they  may  not  be 
known.  Now,  every  action  that  is  contingent  is  equally  interested 
therein.  "  A  quatenus  ad  omne  valet  argumentum."  That  place  of 
the  psalm  before  recited,  Ps.  cxxxix.  2-6,  is  express  as  to  the  know 
ledge  of  God  concerning  our  free  actions  that  are  yet  future.  If  any 
thing  in  the  world  may  be  reckoned  amongst  our  free  actions,  surely 
our  thoughts  may ;  and  such  a  close  reserved  treasure  are  they  that 
Mr  B.  doth  more  than  insinuate,  in  the  application  of  the  texts  of 
Scripture  which  he  mention  eth,  that  God  knoweth  them  not  when 
present  without  search  and  inquiry.  But  these,  saith  the  psalmist, 
"God  knoweth  afar  off," — before  we  think  them,  before  they  enter  into 
our  hearts.  And  truly  I  marvel  that  any  man,  not  wholly  given  up 
to  a  spirit  of  giddiness,  after  he  had  produced  this  text  of  Scripture 
to  prove  that  God  knows  our  thoughts,  should  instantly  subjoin  a 
question  leading  men  to  a  persuasion  that  God  knows  not  our  free 
actions  that  are  future ;  unless  it  was  with  a  Julian  design,  to  im 
pair  the  credit  of  the  word  of  God,  by  pretending  it  liable  to  self- 
contradiction,  or,  with  Lucian,  to  deride  God  as  bearing  contrary 
testimonies  concerning  himself. 

2.  God  hath,  by  himself  and  his  holy  prophets,  which  have  been 
from  the  foundation  of  the  world,  foretold  many  of  the  free  actions 
of  men,  what  they  would  do,  what  they  should  do,  long  before  they 
were  born  who  were  to  do  them.2  To  give  a -little  light  to  this  ar 
gument,  which  of  itself  will  easily  overwhelm  all  that  stands  before  it, 

1  Some  read  "  babes."     See  Juv.  Sat.  x.  365. — ED. 

*  "  Pnescientia  Dei  tot  habet  testes,  quot  fecit  prophetas." — TertuL  lib.  ii.  contra 


I  shall  handle  it  under  these  propositions  : — (1.)  That  God  hath  so 
foretold  the  free  actions  of  men.  (2.)  That  so  he  could  not  do  unless 
he  knew  them,  and  that  they  would  be,  then  when  he  foretold  them. 
(3.)  That  he  proves  himself  to  be  God  by  these  his  predictions.  (4.) 
That  he  foretells  them  as  the  means  of  executing  many  of  his  judg 
ments  which  he  hath  purposed  and  threatened,  and  the  accomplish 
ment  of  many  mercies  which  he  hath  promised,  so  that  the  denial  of 
his  foresight  of  them  so  exempts  them  from  under  his  providence 
as  to  infer  that  he  rules  not  in  the  world  by  punishments  and  rewards. 

For  the  first: — (1.)  There  needs  no  great  search  or  inquiry  after 
witnesses  to  confirm  the  truth  of  it ;  the  Scripture  is  full  of  such  pre 
dictions  from  one  end  to  the  other.  Some  few  instances  shall  suffice : 
Gen.  xviii.  18, 19,  "  Seeing  that  Abraham  shall  surely  become  a  great 
and  mighty  nation,  and  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  shall  be  blessed 
in  him ;  for  I  know  him,  that  he  will  command  his  children  and  his 
household  after  him,  and  they  shall  keep  the  way  of  the  LORD,  to  do 
justice  and  judgment;  that  the  LORD  may  bring  upon  Abraham  that 
which  he  hath  spoken  of  him."  Scarce  a  word  but  is  expressive  of 
some  future  contingent  thing,  if  the  free  actions  of  men  be  so  before 
they  are  wrought.  That  "  Abraham  should  become  a  mighty  na 
tion,"  that  "  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  should  be  blessed  in  him," 
that  he  would  "command  his  children  and  his  household  after  him 
to  keep  the  ways  of  the  LORD,"  it  was  all  to  be  brought  about  by 
the  free  actions  of  Abraham  and  of  others;  and  all  this  "  I  know," 
saith  the  Lord,  and  accordingly  declares  it.  By  the  way,  if  the 
Lord  knew  all  this  before,  his  following  trial  of  Abraham  was  not  to 
satisfy  himself  whether  he  feared  him  or  no,  as  is  pretended. 

So  also  Gen.  xv.  13,  14,  "  And  he  said  unto  Abram,  Know  of  a 
surety  that  thy  seed  shall  be  a  stranger  in  a  land  that  is  not  theirs, 
and  shall  serve  them;  and  they  shall  afflict  them  four  hundred  years; 
and  also  that  nation,  whom  they  shall  serve,  will  I  judge:  and  after 
ward  shall  they  come  out  with  great  substance."  The  Egyptians' 
affliction  on  the  Israelites  was  by  their  free  actions,  if  any  be  free. 
It  was  their  sin  to  do  it ;  they  sinned  in  all  that  they  did  for  the 
effecting  of  it.  And,  doubtless,  if  any  men's  sinful  actions  are  free, 
yet  doth  God  here  foretell  "  They  shall  afflict  them." 

Deut.  xxxi.  16-18,  you  have  an  instance  beyond  all  possible  ex 
ception:  "  And  the  LORD  said  unto  Moses,  Behold,  thou  shalt  sleep 
with  thy  fathers ;  and  this  people  will  rise  up,  and  go  a  whoring  after 
the  gods  of  the  strangers  of  the  land,  whither  they  go  to  be  among 
them,  and  will  forsake  me,  and  break  my  covenant  which  I  have 
made  with  them.  Then  my  anger  shall  be  kindled  against  them  in 
that  day,  and  I  will  forsake  them,  and  I  will  hide  my  face  from  them, 
and  they  shall  be  devoured,  and  many  evils  and  troubles  shall  befall 
them ;  so  that  they  will  say  in  that  day,  Are  not  these  evils  come  upon 


us,  because  our  God  is  not  among  us?"  etc.  The  sum  of  a  good  part 
of  what  is  recorded  in  the  Book  of  Judges  is  here  foretold  by  God. 
The  people's  going  a  whoring  after  the  gods  of  the  strangers  of 
the  land,  their  forsaking  of  God,  their  breaking  his  covenant,  the 
thoughts  of  their  hearts  and  their  expressions  upon  the  consideration 
of  the  evils  and  afflictions  that  should  befall  them,  were  of  their  free 
actions;  but  now  all  these  doth  God  here  foretell,  and  thereby  engages 
the  honour  of  his  truth  unto  the  certainty  of  their  coming  to  pass. 

1  Kings  xiii.  2  is  signal  to  the  same  purpose :  "  0  altar,  altar, 
behold,  a  child  shall  be  born  unto  the  house  of  David,  Josiah  by 
name;  and  upon  thee  shall  he  offer  the  priests  of  the  high  places 
that  burn  incense  upon  thee,  and  men's  bones  shall  be  burnt  upon 
thee."  This  prediction  is  given  out  three  hundred  years  before  the 
birth  of  Josiah.  The  accomplishment  of  it  you  have  in  the  story, 
2  Kings  xxiii.  17.  Did  Josiah  act  freely?  was  his  proceeding  at 
Bethel  by  free  actions,  or  no  ?  If  not,  how  shall  we  know  what 
actions  of  men  are  free,  what  not  ?  If  it  was,  his  free  actions  are 
here  foretold,  and  therefore,  I  think,  foreseen. 

1  Kings  xx  ii.  28,  the  prophet  Micaiah,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord, 
having  foretold  a  thing  that  was  contingent,  and  which  was  accom 
plished  by  a  man  acting  at  a  venture,  lays  the  credit  of  his  prophecy 
(and  therein  his  life,  for  if  he  had  proved  false  as  to  the  event  he 
was  to  have  suffered  death  by  the  law)  at  stake,  before  all  the  people, 
upon  the  certainty  of  the  issue  foretold :  "  And  Micaiah  said,  If  thou 
return  at  all  in  peace,  the  LORD  hath  not  spoken  by  me.  And  he 
said,  Hearken,  O  people,  every  one  of  you." 

Of  these  predictions  the  Scripture  is  full.  The  prophecies  of  Cyrus 
in  Isaiah,  of  the  issue  of  the  Babylonish  war  and  kingdom  of  Judah  in 
Jeremiah,  of  the  several  great  alterations  and  changes  in  the  empires  of 
the  world  in  Daniel,  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ  in  them  all,  are  too  long 
to  be  insisted  on.  The  reader  may  also  consult  Matt.  xxiv.  5 ;  Mark 
xiii.  6,  xiv.  '30 ;  Acts  xx.  29 ;  2  Thess.  ii.  3,  4,  etc. ;  1  Tim.  iv.  1 ;  2  Tim. 
iii.  1 ;  2  Pet  ii.  1 ;  and  the  Revelation  almost  throughout.  Our  first 
proposition,  then,  is  undeniably  evident,  That  God,  by  himself  and  by 
his  prophets,  hath  foretold  things  future,  even  the  free  actions  of  men. 

(2.)  The  second  proposition  mentioned  is  manifest  and  evident  in 
its  own  light :  What  God  foretelleth,  that  he  perfectly  foreknows. 
The  honour  and  repute  of  his  veracity  and  truth,  yea,  of  his  being, 
depend  on  the  certain  accomplishment  of  what  he  absolutely  fore 
tells.  If  his  predictions  of  things  future  are  not  bottomed  on  his 
certain  prescience  of  them,  they  are  all  but  like  Satan's  oracles,  con 
jectures  and  guesses  of  what  may  be  accomplished  or  not, — a  sup 
position  whereof  is  as  high  a  pitch  of  blasphemy  as  any  creature  in 
this  world  can  possibly  arrive  unto. 

(3.)  By  this  prerogative  of  certain  predictions  in  reference  to 


things  to  come,  God  vindicates  his  own  deity ;  and  from  the  want  of 
it  evinces  the  vanity  of  the  idols  of  the  Gentiles,  and  the  falseness 
of  the  prophets  that  pretend  to  speak  in  his  name:  Isa.  xli.  21-24, 
"  Produce  your  cause,  saith  the  LOED  ;  bring  forth  your  strong  rea 
sons,  saith  the  King  of  Jacob.  Let  them  bring  them  forth,  and  show 
us  what  shall  happen:  let  them  show  the  former  things,  what  they 
be;  or  declare  us  things  for  to  coma  Show  the  things  that  are  to 
come  hereafter,  that  we  may  know  that  ye  are  gods.  Behold,  ye  are 
of  nothing."  The  Lord  calling  forth  the  idols  of  the  Gentiles,  devils, 
stocks,  and  stones,  to  plead  for  themselves,  before  the  denunciation, 
of  the  solemn  sentence  ensuing,  verse  24,  he  puts  them  to  the  plea 
of  foreknowledge  for  the  proof  of  their  deity.  If  they  can  foretell 
things  to  come  certainly  and  infallibly,  on  the  account  of  their  own 
knowledge  of  them,  gods  they  are,  and  gods  they  shall  be  esteemed. 
If  not,  saith  he,  "  Ye  are  nothing,  worse  than  nothing,  and  your 
work  of  nought ;  an  abomination  is  he  that  chooseth  you."  And 
it  may  particularly  be  remarked,  that  the  idols  of  whom  he  speak- 
eth  are  in  especial  those  of  the  Chaldeans,  whose  worshippers  pre 
tended  above  all  men  in  the  world  to  divination  and  predictions. 
Now,  this  issue  doth  the  Lord  drive  things  to  betwixt  himself  and 
the  idols  of  the  world  :  If  they  can  foretell  things  to  come,  that  is, 
not  this  or  that  thing  (for  so,  by  conjecture,  upon  consideration  of 
second  causes  and  the  general  dispositions  of  things,  they  may  do, 
and  the  devil  hath  done),  but  any  thing  or  every  thing,  they  shall  go 
free;  that  is,  "  Is  there  nothing  hid  from  you  that  is  yet  for  to  be?" 
Being  not  able  to  stand  before  this  interrogation,  they  perish  before 
the  judgment  mentioned.  But  now,  if  it  may  be  replied  to  the 
living  God  himself  that  this  is  a  most  unequal  way  of  proceeding, 
to  lay  that  burden  upon  the  shoulders  of  others  which  himself  will 
not  bear,  bring  others  to  that  trial  which  himself  cannot  undergo, 
for  he  himself  cannot  foretell  the  free  actions  of  men,  because  he  doth 
not  foreknow  them,  would  not  his  plea  render  him  like  to  the  idols 
whom  he  adjudgeth  to  shame  and  confusion?  God  himself  there, 
concluding  that  they  are  "vanity  and  nothing  "  who  are  pretended  to 
be  gods  but  are  not  able  to  foretell  the  things  that  are  for  to  come, 
asserts  his  own  deity,  upon  the  account  of  his  infinite  understanding 
and  knowledge  of  all  things,  on  the  account  whereof  he  can  fore 
show  all  things  whatever  that  are  as  yet  future.  In  like  manner 
doth  he  proceed  to  evince  what  is  from  himself,  what  not,  in  the 
predictions  of  any,  from  the  certainty  of  the  event:  Deut.  xviii. 
21,  22,  "  If  thou  say  in  thine  heart,  How  shall  we  know  the  word 
which  the  LORD  hath  not  spoken?  When  a  prophet  speaketh  in  the 
name  of  the  LORD,  if  the  thing  follow  not,  nor  come  to  pass,  that  is 
the  thing  which  the  LORD  hath  not  spoken,  but  the  prophet  hath 
spoken  it  presumptuously :  thou  shalt  not  be  afraid  of  him." 


(4.)  The  fourth  proposition,  That  God  by  the  free  actions  of  men 
(some  whereof  he  foretelleth)  doth  fulfil  his  own  counsel  as  to  judg 
ments  and  mercies,  rewards  and  punishments,  needs  no  farther  proof 
or  confirmation  but  what  will  arise  from  a  mere  review  of  the  things 
before  mentioned,  by  God  so  foretold,  as  was  to  be  proved.  They 
were  things  of  the  greatest  import  in  the  world,  as  to  the  good  or 
evil  of  the  inhabitants  thereof,  and  in  whose  accomplishment  as 
much  of  the  wisdom,  power,  righteousness,  and  mercy  of  God  was 
manifest,  as  in  any  of  the  works  of  his  providence  whatever.  Those 
things  which  he  hath  [so]  disposed  of  as  to  be  subservient  to  so  great 
ends,  certainly  he  knew  that  they  would  be.  The  selling  of  Joseph, 
the  crucifying  of  his  Son,  the  destruction  of  antichrist,  are  things  of 
greater  concernment  than  that  God  should  only  conjecture  at  their 
event.  And,  indeed,  the  taking  away  of  God's  foreknowledge  of 
things  contingent  renders  his  providence  useless  as  to  the  govern 
ment  of  the  world.  To  what  end  should  any  rely  upon  him,  seek 
unto  him,  commit  themselves  to  his  care  through  the  course  of  their 
lives,  when  he  knows  not  what  will  or  may  befall  them  the  next 
day?  How  shall  he  judge  or  rule  the  world  who  every  moment  is 
surprised  with  new  emergencies  which  he  foresaw  not,  which  must 
necessitate  him  to  new  counsels  and  determinations?  On  the  con 
sideration  of  this  argument  doth  Episcopius  conclude  for  the  pre 
science  of  God,  Ep.  ii.,  "  ad  Beverovicium  de  termino  vitse,"1  which 
he  had  allowed  to  be  questioned  in  his  private  Theological  Dispu 
tations,3  though  in  his  public  afterward  he  pleads  for  it.  The  sum 
of  the  argument  insisted  on  amounts  to  this : — 

Those  things  which  God  foretells  that  they  shall  certainly  and  in 
fallibly  come  to  pass  before  they  so  do,  those  he  certainly  and  infal 
libly  knoweth  whilst  they  are  future,  and  that  they  will  come  to  pass; 
but  God  foretells,  and  hath  foretold,  all  manner  of  future  contin 
gencies  and  free  actions  of  men,  good  and  evil,  duties  and  sins :  there 
fore  he  certainly  and  infallibly  knows  them  whilst  they  are  yet  future. 

The  proposition  stands  or  falls  unto  the  honour  of  God's  truth, 
veracity,  and  power. 

The  assumption  is  proved  by  the  former  and  sundry  other  instances 
that  may  be  given. 

He  foretold  that  the  Egyptians  should  afflict  his  people  four  hun- 

1  "  Speciem  et  pondus  videtur  habere  hsec  objectio;  nee  pauci  sunt,  qui  ejus  vi  adeo 
moventur,  ut  divinam  futurorum  contingentium  praescientiam  negare,  et  quoe  pro  ea 
facere  videntur  loca,  atque  argumenta,  magno  conatu  torquere  malint,  et  flectere  in 
sensus,  non  minus  periculouos  quam  difficiles.  Ad  me  quod  attinet,  ego  hactenus  sive 
religione  quadam  ani  mi,  sive  divinae  majestatis  reverentia,  non  potui  prorsus  in  animum 
meum  inducere,  rationem  istam  allegatam  tanti  esse,  ut  propter  earn  Deo  futurorum 
contingentium  prsescientia  detrahenda  sit;  maxime  cum  vix  videam,  quomodo  alioquin 
divinarum  prsedictionum  veritas  salvari  possit,  sine  aliqua  aut  incertitudinis  macula, 
aut  falsi  possibilis  suspicione." — Sim.  Episcop.  Respons.  ad  2  Ep.  Johan.  Beverovic. 

*  Episcop.  Instit.  Thcol.  lib.  iv.  cap.  xvii.  xviii.  ;  Episcop.  Disput.  de  Deo,  thes.  10. 


dred  years,  that  in  so  doing  they  would  sin,  and  that  for  it  he  would 
punish  them,  Gen.  xv.  13,  14;  and  surely  the  Egyptians'  sinning 
therein  was  their  own  free  action.  The  incredulity  of  the  Jews, 
treachery  of  Judas,  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  all  that  happened  to 
Christ  in  the  days  of  his  flesh,  the  coming  of  antichrist,  the  rise  of 
false  teachers,  were  all  foretold,  and  did  all  of  them  purely  depend 
on  the  free  actions  of  men  ;  which  was  to  be  demonstrated. 

3.  To  omit  many  other  arguments,  and  to  close  this  discourse: 
all  perfections  are  to  be  ascribed  to  God ;  they  are  all  in  him.  To 
know  is  an  excellency;  he  that  knows  any  thing  is  therein  better 
than  he  that  knows  it  not.  The  more  any  one  knows,  the  more  ex 
cellent  is  he.  To  know  all  things  is  an  absolute  perfection  in  the 
good  of  knowledge  ;  to  know  them  in  and  by  himself  who  so  knows 
them,  and  not  from  any  discourses  made  to  him  from  without,  is  an 
absolute  perfection  in  itself,  and  is  required  where  there  is  infinite  wis 
dom  and  understanding.  This  we  ascribe  to  God,  as  worthy  of  him, 
and  as  by  himself  ascribed  to  himself.  To  affirm,  on  the  other  side, 
— (1.)  That  God  hath  his  knowledge  from  things  without  him,  and 
so  is  taught  wisdom  and  understanding,  as  we  are,  from  the  event  of 
things,  for  the  more  any  one  knows  the  wiser  he  is ;  (2.)  That  he 
hath,  as  we  have,  a  successive  knowledge  of  things,  knowing  that 
one  day  which  he  knew  not  another,  and  that  thereupon  there  is, — 
(3.)  A  daily  and  hourly  change  and  alteration  in  him,  as,  from  the 
increasing  of  his  knowledge  there  must  actually  and  formally  be; 
and,  (4.)  That  he  sits  conjecturing  at  events; — to  assert,  I  say,  these 
and  the  like  monstrous  figments  concerning  God  and  his  knowledge, 
is,  as  much  as  in  them  lieth  who  so  assert  them,  to  shut  his  provi 
dence  out  of  the  world,  and  to  divest  him  of  all  his  blessedness,  self- 
sufficiency,  and  infinite  perfections.  And,  indeed,  if  Mr  B.  believe  his 
own  principles,  and  would  speak  out,  he  must  assert  these  things, 
how  desperate  soever;  for  having  granted  the  premises,  it  is  stupidity 
to  stick  at  the  conclusion.  And  therefore  some  of  those  whom  Mr 
B.  is  pleased  to  follow  in  these  wild  vagaries  speak  out,  •  and  say 
(though  with  as  much  blasphemy  as  confidence)  that  God  doth  only 
conjecture  and  guess  at  future  contingents;  for  when  this  argument 
is  brought,  Gen.  xviii.  19,  " '  I  know/  saith  God,  'Abraham,  that  he 
will  command  his  children  and  his  household  after  him/  etc.,  there 
fore  future  contingents  may  be  certainly  known  of  him,"  they  deny 
the  consequence ;  or,  granting  that  he  may  be  said  to  know  them, 
yet  say  it  is  only  by  guess  and  conjecture,  as  we  do.1  And  for  the 
present  vindication  of  the  attributes  of  God  this  may  suffice. 

1  Anonynras  adv.  cap.  priora  Matth.,  p.  28.  "Nego  consequential! :  Dens  dicere 
potuit  se  scire  quid  facturus  erat  Abraham,  etsi  id  certo  non  pnenoverit,  sed  probabi- 
liter.  Inducitur  enim  Deus  ssepius  humano  more  loquens.  Solent  autem  homines 
affirmare  se  scire  ea  futura,  quse  verisimiliter  futura  sunt,"  etc. 


Before  I  close  this  discourse,  it  may  not  be  impertinent  to  divert 
a  little  to  that  which  alone  seems  to  be  of  any  difficulty  lying  in  our 
way  in  the  assertion  of  this  prescience  of  God,  though  no  occasion  of 
its  consideration  be  administered  to  us  by  him  with  whom  we  have 
to  do. 

"  That  future  contingents  have  not  in  themselves  a  determinate 
truth,  and  therefore  cannot  be  determinately  known/'  is  the  great 
plea  of  those  who  oppose  God's  certain  foreknowledge  of  them;  "and 
therefore,"  say  they,  "doth  the  philosopher  affirm  that  propositions 
concerning  them  are  neither  true  nor  false."1  But, — 

1.  That  there  is,  or  may  be,  that  there  hath  been,  a  certain  predic 
tion  of  future  contingents  hath  been  demonstrated ;  and  therefore 
they  must  on  some  account  or  other  (and  what  that  account  is  hath 
been  declared)  have  a  determinate  truth.      And  I  had  much  rather 
conclude  that  there  are  certain  predictions  of  future  contingents  in 
the  Scripture,  and  therefore  they  have  a  determinate  truth,  than,  on 
the  contrary,  they  have  no  determinate  truth,  therefore  there  are  no 
certain  predictions  of  them.    "  Let  God  be  true,  and  every  man  a  liar." 

2.  As  to  the  falsity  of  that  pretended  axiom,  this  proposition, 
"  Such  a  soldier  shall  pierce  the  side  of  Christ  with  a  spear,  or  he 
shall  not  pierce  him,"  is  determinately  true  and  necessary  on  the  one 
side  or  the  other,  the  parts  of  it  being  contradictory,  which  cannot 
lie  together.     Therefore,  if  a  man  before  the  flood  had  used  this  pro 
position  in  the  affirmative,  it  had  been  certainly  and  determinately 
true ;  for  that  proposition  which  was  once  not  true  cannot  be  true 
afterward  upon  the  same  account. 

3.  If  no  affirmative  proposition  about  future  contingents  be  de 
terminately  true,  then  every  such  affirmative  proposition  is  determi 
nately  false;  for  from  hence,  that  a  thing  is  or  is  not,  is  a  proposition 
determinately  true  or  false.2     And  therefore  if  any  one  shall  say 
that  that  is  determinately  future  which  is  absolutely  indifferent,  his 
affirmation  is  false ;  which  is  contrary  to  Aristotle,  whom  in  this  they 
rely  upon,  who  affirms  that  such  propositions  are  neither  true  nor 
false.     The  truth  is,  of  propositions  that  they  are  true  or  false  is  cer 
tain.     Truth  or  falseness  are  their  proper  and  necessary  affections,  as 
even  and  odd  of  numbers;  nor  can  any  proposition  be  given  where 
in  there  is  a  contradiction,  whereof  one  part  is  true  and  the  other 

4.  This  proposition,  "  Petrus  orat,"  is  determinately  true  de  pras- 
senti,  when  Peter  doth  actually  pray  (for  "  quicquid  est,  dum  est, 
determinate  est") ;  therefore  this  proposition  de  futuro,  "  Petrus 
orabit,"  is  determinately  true.      The  former  is  the  measure  and  rule 

1  Arist.  lib.  i.  de  Interp.  cap.  viii. 

2  Alphons.  de  Mendoza.  Con.  Theol.  Scholast.  q.  1,  p.  534 ;  Vasquez.  in  1  Tho.  disp.  16 ; 
Ruvio  in  1,  Interpret,  cap.  vi.  q.  unica,  etc. 


by  which  we  judge  of  the  latter.  So  that  because  it  is  true  de 
presenti,  "Petrus  orat;"  ergo  this,  de  future,  "  Petrus  orabit,"  was 
ab  aeterno  true  (ex  parte  rei).  And  then  (ex  parte  modi)  because 
this  proposition,  "Petrus  orat/' is  determinately  true  de  prsesenti; 
ergo  this,  "  Petrus  orabit,"  was  determinately  true  from  all  eternity.1 
But  enough  of  this. 

Mr  B.  having  made  a  sad  complaint  of  the  ignorance  and  darkness 
that  men  were  bred  up  in  by  being  led  from  the  Scripture,  and  im 
posing  himself  upon  them  for  "  a  guide  of  the  blind,  a  light  of  them 
which  are  in  darkness,  an  instructor  of  the  foolish,  and  a  teacher  of 
babes,"  doth,  in  pursuit  of  his  great  undertaking,  in  this  chapter 
instruct  them  what  the  Scripture  speaks  concerning  the  being,  na- 
tiiire,  and  properties  of  God.  Of  his  goodness,  wisdom,  power,  truth, 
righteousness,  faithfulness,  mercy,  independency,  sovereignty,  infinite- 
ness,  men  had  before  been  informed  by  books,  tracts,  and  catechisms, 
"  composed  according  to  the  fancies  and  interests  of  men,  the  Scrip 
ture  being  utterly  justled  out  of  the  way."  Alas !  of  these  things  the 
Scripture  speaks  not  at  all ;  but  the  description  wherein  that  abounds 
of  God,  and  which  is  necessary  that  men  should  know  (whatever  be 
come  of  those  other  inconsiderable  things  wherewith  other  poor  cate 
chisms  are  stuffed),  is,  that  he  is  finite,  limited,  and  obnoxious  to 
passions,  etc.  "  Thou  that  abhorrest  idols,  dost  thou  commit  sacri 


Of  the  creation,  and  condition  of  man  before  and  after  the  fall. 


Ques.  Were  the  heaven  and  earth  from  all  eternity,  or  created  at  a  certain 
time?  and  by  whom? 

Ans.  Gen.  i.  1. 

Q.  How  long  was  God  a  making  tJiem  9 

A.  Exod.  xx.  11. 

Q.  How  did  God  create  man  ? 

A.  Gen.  ii.  7. 

Q.  How  did  he  create  woman? 

A.  Gen.  ii.  21,  22. 

Q.  Why  was  she  called  woman  9 

A.  Gen.  ii.  23. 

Q.  What  doth  Moses  infer  from  her  being  made  a  woman,  and  brought  unto 
the  man  ? 

A.  Gen.  ii.  24. 

Q.   Where  did  God  put  man  after  he  was  created? 

A.  Gen.  ii.  8. 

1  Vid.  Rod.  de  Arriaga.  disp.  Log.  xiv.  sect.  5,  subsect.  8,  p.  205 ;  Suarez.  in  Opus. 
lib.  i.  de  Praescientia  Dei,  cap.  ii. ;  Vasquez.  1,  Part.  disp.  66,  cap.  ii. ;  Pet.  Hurtado  de 
Mend.  disp.  9,  de  Anima.  sect.  6. 


Q.   What  commandment  gave  he  to  the  man  when  he  put  him  into  the  garden  f 

A.  Gen.  ii.  16,  17. 

Q.   Was  the  man  deceived  to  eat  of  the  forbidden  fruit  ? 

A.  1  Tim.  ii.  14. 

Q.  By  whom  was  the  woman  deceived? 

A.  2  Cor.  xi.  3. 

Q.  How  was  the  woman  induced  to  eat  of  theforbidden  fruit?  and  how  the  manf 

A.  Gen.  iii.  6. 

Q.   What  e/ect  followed  upon  their  eating? 

A.  Gen.  iii.  7. 

Q.  Did  the  sin  of  our  first  parents  in  eating  of  the  forbidden  fruit  bring  both 
upon  them  and  their  posterity  the  guilt  of  hell-fire,  deface  the  image  of  God  in 
them,  darken  their  understanding,  enslave  their  will,  deprive  them  of  power  to  do 
good,  and  cause  mortality  ?  If  not,  what  are  the  true  penalties  that  God  denounced 
against  them  for  the  said  offence? 

A.  Gen.  iii.  16-19. 


Having  delivered  his  thoughts  concerning  God  himself,  his  nature 
and  properties,  in  the  foregoing  chapters,  in  this  our  catechist  pro 
ceeds  to  the  consideration  of  his  works,  ascribing  to  God  the  creation 
of  all  things,  especially  insisting  on  the  making  of  man.  Now, 
although  many  questions  might  be  proposed  from  which  Mr  B. 
would,  I  suppose,  be  scarcely  able  to  extricate  himself,  relating  to  the 
impossibility  of  the  proceeding  of  such  a  work  as  the  creation  of  all 
things  from  such  an  agent  as  he  hath  described  God  to  be,  so  limited 
both  in  his  essence  and  properties,  yet  it  being  no  part  of  my  busi 
ness  to  dispute  or  perplex  any  thing  that  is  simply  in  itself  true  and 
unquestionable,  with  the  attendancies  of  it  from  other  corrupt  notions 
of  him  or  them  by  whom  it  is  received  and  proposed,  I  shall  wholly 
omit  all  considerations  of  that  nature,  and  apply  myself  merely  to 
what  is  by  him  expressed.  That  he  who  is  limited  and  finite  in 
essence,  and  consequently  in  properties,  should  by  his  power,  without 
the  help  of  any  intervening  instrument,  out  of  nothing,  produce,  at 
such  a  vast  distance  from  him  as  his  hands  can  by  no  means  reach 
unto,  such  mighty  effects  as  the  earth  itself  and  the  fulness  thereof, 
is  not  of  an  easy  proof  or  resolution.  But  on  these  things  at  present 
I  shall  not  insist.  Certain  it  is  that,  on  this  apprehension  of  God, 
the  Epicureans  disputed  for  the  impossibility  of  the  creation  of  the 

His  first  question,  then,  is,  "  Were  the  heaven  and  earth  from  all 
eternity,  or  created  at  a  certain  time  ?  and  by  whom  ?"  To  which 
he  answers  with  Gen.  i.  1,  "  In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heaven 
and  the  earth." 

1  "  Quibus  enim  oculis  animi  intueri  potuit  vester  Plato  fabricam  illam  tanti  opens, 
qua  construi  a  Deo  atque  sedificari  mundum  facit  ?  Quae  molitio  ?  Qua  ferramenta  ? 
Qui  vectes  ?  Quca  macbinse  ?  Qui  ministri  tanti  muneris  fuerunt  ?  Quemadmodum 
autem  obedire  et  parere  voluntati  architect!  aer,  ignis,  aqua,  terra,  potuerunt  ?  "— 
Velleius  apud  Cicer.  de  Nat.  Deor.  lib.  L  8. 


Right.  Only  in  the  exposition  of  this  verse,  as  it  discovers  the 
principal  efficient  cause  of  the  creation  of  all  things,  or  the  author  of 
this  great  work,  Mr  B.  afterward  expounds  himself  to  differ  from  us 
and  the  word  of  God  in  other  places.  By  "  God"  he  intends  the 
Father  only  and  exclusively,  the  Scripture  plentifully  ascribing  this 
work  also  to  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  manifesting  their  concurrence 
in  the  indivisible  Deity  unto  this  great  work,  though,  by  way  of 
eminency,  this  work  be  attributed  to  the  Father,  as  that  of  redemp 
tion  is  to  the  Son,  and  that  of  regeneration  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  from 
neither  of  which  notwithstanding  is  the  Father  excluded. 

Perhaps  the  using  of  the  name  of  God  in  the  plural  number,  where 
mention  is  made  of  the  creation,  in  conjunction  with  a  verb  singular, 
Gen.  i.  1,  and  the  express  calling  of  God  our  Creators  and  Makers, 
Eccles.  xii  1,  Ps.  cxlix.  2,  Job  xxxv.  10,  wants  not  a  significancy 
to  this  thing.1  And  indeed  he  that  shall  consider  the  miserable 
evasions  that  the  adversaries  have  invented  to  escape  the  argument 
thence  commonly  insisted  on  must  needs  be  confirmed  in  the  per 
suasion  of  the  force  of  it.3  Mr  B.  may  haply  close  with  Plato  in 
this  business,  who,  in  his  "  Timasus,"  brings  in  his  faifjuoupyos  speaking 
to  his  genii  about  the  making  of  man,  telling  them  that  they  were 
mortal,  but  encouraging  them  to  obey  him  in  the  making  of  other 
creatures,  upon  the  promise  of  immortality.  "  Turn  you,"  saith  he, 
"according  to  the  law  of  nature,  to  the  making  of  living  creatures, 
and  imitate  my  power  which  I  used  in  your  generation  or  birth;"3 — 
a  speech  fit  enough  for  Mr  B/s  god,  "  who  is  shut  up  in  heaven,"  and 
not  able  of  himself  to  attend  his  whole  business.  But  what  a  sad 
success  this  demiurgus  had,  by  his  want  of  prescience,  or  foresight 
of  what  his  demons  would  do  (wherein  also  Mr  B.  likens  God  unto 
him),  is  farther  declared ;  for  they  imprudently  causing  a  conflux  of 
too  much  matter  and  humour,  no  small  tumult  followed  thereon  in 
heaven,  as  at  large  you  may  see  in  the  same  author.  However, 
it  is  said  expressly  the  Son  or  Word  created  all  things,  John  i.  3 ; 
and,  "By  him  are  all  things,"  1  Cor.  viii.  6,  Rev.  iv.  11.  Of  the 
Holy  Ghost  the  same  is  affirmed,  Gen.  i.  2,  Job  xxvi.  13,  Ps.  xxxiii. 
6.  Nor  can  the  Word  and  Spirit  be  degraded  from  the  place  of 
principal  efficient  cause  in  this  work  to  a  condition  of  instrumentality 
only,  which  is  urged  (especially  in  reference  to  the  Spirit),  unless  we 

1  "  Poterat  et  illud  de  angelis  intelligi,  Faciamus  hominem,  etc.,  sed  quia  sequitur,  ad 
imaginem  nostram,  nefas  est  credere,  ad  imagines  angelorum  hominem  esse  factum, 
aut  eandem  esse  imaginem  angelorum  et  Dei.  Et  ideo  recte  intelligitur  pluralitas 
Trinitatis.  Quse  tamen  Trinitas,  quia  unus  est  Deus,  etiam  cum  dixisset,  fadamus,  et 
fecit,  inquit,  Deus  hominem  ad  imaginem  Dei :  non  vero  dixit,  fecerunt  Dii  ad  imaginem 
Deorum." — Aug.  de  Civit.  Dei,  lib.  xvi.  cap.  vi. 

8  Georg.  Enjed.  in.  Explicat.  loc.  Ver.  et  Nov.  Testam.  in  Gen.  i.  26. 

Tptnffft  Kara,   (futriv   iiftiT;   Iwi   Tflv   Tea?   T^uinv   anfiioupyittv,   (t.i/j,oufj.iioi   T»J»    tftri»  ou»af&n 

irtfi  T)I>  vptripat  yintH. — Plato,  in  Timaso.     Dial.  p.  iii.  vol.  ii.  p.  43. 


shall  suppose  them  to  have  been  created  before  any  creation,  and  to 
have  been  instrumental  of  their  own  production.  But  of  these  things 
in  their  proper  place. 

His  second  question  is,  "  How  long  was  God  in  making  them  ?" 
and  he  answers  from  Exod.  xx.  11,  "In  six  days  the  LORD  made 
heaven  and  earth,  the  sea,  and  all  that  in  them  is." 

The  rule  I  formerly  prescribed  to  myself  of  dealing  with  Mr  B. 
causes  me  to  pass  this  question  also  without  farther  inquiry ;  although, 
having  already  considered  what  his  notions  are  concerning  the  nature 
and  properties  of  God,  I  can  scarce  avoid  conjecturing  that  by  this 
crude  proposal  of  the  time  wherein  the  work  of  God's  creation  was 
finished,  there  is  an  intendment  to  insinuate  such  a  gross  conception 
of  the  working  of  God  as  will  by  no  means  be  suited  to  his  omnipo 
tent  production  of  all  things.  But  speaking  of  things  no  farther  than 
enforced,  I  shall  not  insist  on  this  query. 

His  third  is,  "How  did  God  create  man?"  and  the  answer  is, 
Gen.  ii.  7.  To  which  he  adds  a  fourth,  "  How  did  he  create  woman  V 
which  he  resolves  from  Gen.  ii.  21,  22. 

Mr  B.,  undertaking  to  give  all  the  grounds  of  religion  in  his  Cate 
chisms,  teacheth  as  well  by  his  silence  as  his  expressions.  What 
he  mentions  not,  in  the  known  doctrine  he  opposeth,  he  may  well  be 
interpreted  to  reject.  As  to  the  matter  whereof  man  and  woman 
were  made,  Mr  B.'s  answers  do  express  it;  but  as  to  the  condi 
tion  and  state  wherein  they  were  made,  of  that  he  is  silent,  though 
he  knows  the  Scripture  doth  much  more  abound  in  delivering  the 
one  than  the  other.  Neither  can  his  silence  in  this  thing  be  imputed 
to  oversight  or  forgetfulness,  considering  how  subservient  it  is  to  his 
intendment  in  his  last  two  questions,  for  the  subverting  of  the  doc 
trine  of  original  sin,  and  the  denial  of  all  those  effects  and  conse 
quences  of  the  first  breach  of  covenant  whereof  he  speaks.  He  can, 
upon  another  account,  take  notice  that  man  was  made  in  the  image 
of  God:  but  whereas  hitherto  Christians  have  supposed  that  that 
denoted  some  spiritual  perfection  bestowed  on  man,  wherein  he 
resembles  God,  Mr  B.  hath  discovered  that  it  is  only  an  expression 
of  some  imperfection  of  God,  wherein  he  resembles  man ;  which  yet 
he  will  as  hardly  persuade  us  of  as  that  a  man  hath  seven  eyes  or 
two  wings,  which  are  ascribed  unto  God  also.  That  man  was  created 
in  a  resemblance  and  likeness  unto  God  in  that  immortal  substance 
breathed  into  his  nostrils,  Gen.  ii.  7,  in  the  excellent  rational  faculties 
thereof,  in  the  dominion  he  was  intrusted  withal  over  a  great  part  of 
God's  creation,  but  especially  in  the  integrity  and  uprightness  of  his 
person,  Eccles.  vii.  29,  wherein  he  stood  before  God,  in  reference  to 
the  obedience  required  at  his  hands, — which  condition,  by  the  im 
planting  of  new  qualities  in  our  soul,  we  are,  through  Christ,  in  some 
measure  renewed  unto,  Col.  iii.  10, 12,  Eph.  iv.  24, — the  Scripture  is 


clear,  evident,  and  full  in  the  discovery  of ;  but  hereof  Mr  B.  con 
ceives  not  himself  bound  to  take  notice.  But  what  is  farther  needful 
to  be  spoken  as  to  the  state  of  man  before  the  fall  will  fall  under  the 
consideration  of  the  last  question  of  this  chapter. 

Mr  B.'s  process  in  the  following  questions  is,  to  express  the  story 
of  man's  outward  condition,  unto  the  eighth,  where  he  inquires 
after  the  commandment  given  of  God  to  man  when  he  put  him  into 
the  garden,  in  these  words: — "Q.  What  commandment  gave  he  to 
the  man  when  he  put  him  into  the  garden?"  This  he  resolves  from 
Gen.  ii.  16,  17.  That  God  gave  our  first  parents  the  command  ex 
pressed  is  undeniable.  That  the  matter  chiefly  expressed  in  that 
command  was  all  or  the  principal  part  of  what  he  required  of  them> 
Mr  B.  doth  not  go  about  to  prove.  I  shall  only  desire  to  know  of 
him  whether  God  did  not  in  that  estate  require  of  them  that  they 
should  love  him,  fear  him,  believe  him,  acknowledge  their  dependence 
on  him,  in  universal  obedience  to  his  will?  and  whether  a  suitable 
ness  unto  all  this  duty  were  not  wrought  within  them  by  God?  If 
he  shall  say  No,  and  that  God  required  no  more  of  them  but  only  not 
to  eat  of  the  tree  of  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  I  desire  to  know 
whether  they  might  have  hated  God,  abhorred  him,  believed  Satan, 
and  yet  been  free  from  the  threatening  here  mentioned,  if  they  had 
only  forbore  the  outward  eating  of  the  fruit?  If  this  shall  be  granted, 
I  hope  I  need  not  insist  to  manifest  what  will  easily  be  inferred,  nor  to 
show  how  impossible  this  is,  God  continuing  God,  and  man  a  rational 
creature.  *  If  he  shall  say  that  certainly  God  did  require  that  they 
should  own  him  for  God, — that  is,  believe  him,  love  him,  fear  him, 
and  worship  him,  according  to  all  that  he  should  reveal  to  them  and 
require  of  them, — I  desire  to  know  whether  this  particular  command 
could  be  any  other  than  sacramental  and  symbolical  as  to  the  matter 
of  it,  being  a  thing  of  so  small  importance  in  its  own  nature,  in  com 
parison  of  those  moral  acknowledgments  of  God  before  mentioned; 
and  to  that  question  I  shall  not  need  to  add  more. 

Although  it  may  justly  be  supposed  that  Mr  B.  is  not  without  some 
thoughts  of  deviation  from  the  truth  in  the  following  questions,  yet 
the  last  being  of  most  importance,  and  he  being  express  therein  in 
denying  all  the  effects  of  the  first  sin,  but  only  the  curse  that  came 
upon  the  outward,  visible  world,  I  shall  insist  only  on  that,  and  close 
our  consideration  of  this  chapter.  His  question  is  thus  proposed: 
"  Q.  Did  the  sin  of  our  first  parents  in  eating  of  the  forbidden  fruit 
bring  both  upon  them  and  their  posterity  the  guilt  of  hell-fire,  deface 
the  image  of  God  in  them,  darken  their  understandings,  enslave  their 
wills,  deprive  them  of  power  to  do  good,  and  cause  mortality?  If  not, 
what  are  the  true  penalties  denounced  against  them  for  that  offence?;l 
To  this  he  answers  from  Gen.  iii.  16-19. 

1  Vid.  Diatrib.  de  Justit.  Vindicat. 


What  the  sin  of  our  first  parents  was  may  easily  be  discovered  from 
\vhat  was  said  before  concerning  the  commandment  given  to  them. 
If  universal  obedience  was  required  of  them  unto  God,  according  to 
the  tenor  of  the  law  of  their  creation,  their  sin  was  an  universal  re 
bellion  against  and  apostasy  from  him;  which  though  it  expressed 
itself  in  the  peculiar  transgression  of  that  command  mentioned,  yet 
it  is  far  from  being  reducible  to  any  one  kind  of  sin,  whose  whole 
nature  is  comprised  in  that  expression.  Of  the  effects  of  this  sin  com 
monly  assigned,  Mr  B.  annumerates  and  rejects  six,  sundry  whereof 
are  coincident  with,  and  all  but  one  reducible  to,  that  general  head  of 
loss  of  the  image  of  God ;  but  for  the  exclusion  of  them  all  at  once 
from  being  any  effects  of  the  first  sin,  Mr  B.  thus  argues:  "  If  there 
were  no  effects  or  consequences  of  the  first  sin  but  what  are  expressly 
mentioned,  Gen.  iii.  16-19,  then  those  now  mentioned  are  no  effects 
of  it ;  but  there  are  no  effects  or  consequences  of  that  first  sin  but 
what  are  mentioned  in  that  place : "  therefore  those  recounted  in  his 
query,  and  commonly  esteemed  such,  are  to  be  cashiered  from  any 
such  place  in  the  thoughts  of  men. 

Ans.  The  words  insisted  on  by  Mr  B.  being  expressive  of  the 
curse  of  God  for  sin  on  man,  and  on  the  whole  creation  here  below  for 
his  sake,  it  will  not  be  easy  for  him  to  evince  that  none  of  the  things 
he  rejects  are  not  eminently  inwrapped  in  them.  Would  God  have 
denounced  and  actually  inflicted  such  a  curse  on  the  whole  creation, 
which  he  had  put  in  subjection  to  man,  as  well  as  upon  man  himself, 
and  actually  have  inflicted  it  with  so  much  dread  and  severity  as  he 
hath  done,  if  the  transgression  upon  the  account  whereof  he  did  it  had 
not  been  as  universal  a  rebellion  against  him  as  could  be  fallen  into? 
Man  fell  in  his  whole  dependence  from  God,  and  is  cursed  universally^, 
in  all  his  concernments,  spiritual  and  temporal. 

But  is  this  indeed  the  only  place  of  Scripture  where  the  effects  of 
our  apostasy  from  God,  in  the  sin  of  our  first  parents,  are  described  ? 
Mr  B.  may  as  well  tell  us  that  Gen.  iii.  15  is  the  only  place  where 
mention  is  made  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  there  he  is  mentioned.  But  a 
little  to  clear  this  whole  matter  in  our  passage,  though  what  hath 
been  spoken  may  suffice  to  make  naked  Mr  B/s  sophistry : — 

1.  By  the  effects  of  the  first  sin,  we  understand  every  thing  of  evil 
that,  either  within  or  without,  in  respect  of  a  present  or  future  con 
dition,  in  reference  to  God  and  the  fruition  of  him  whereto  man  was 
created,  or  the  enjoyment  of  any  goodness  from  God,  is  come  upon 
mankind,  by  the  just  ordination  and  appointment  of  God,  where- 
unto  man  was  not  obnoxious  in  his  primitive  state  and  condition.  I 
am  not  at  present  at  all  engaged  to  speak  de  modo,  of  what  is  pri 
vative,  what  positive,  in  original  sin,  of  the  way  of  the  traduction  or 
propagation  of  it,  of  the  imputation  of  the  guilt  of  the  first  sin,  and 
adhesion  of  the  pollution  of  our  nature  defiled  thereby,  or  any  other 

VOL.  XII.  10 


questions  that  are  coincident  with  these  in  the  usual  inquest  made 
into  and  after  the  sin  of  Adam  and  the  fruits  of  it;  but  only  as  to  the 
things  themselves,  which  are  here  wholly  denied.  Now, — 

2.  That  whatsoever  is  evil  in  man  by  nature,  whatever  he  is  ob 
noxious  and  liable  unto  that  is  hurtful  and  destructive  to  him  and  all 
men  in  common,  in  reference  to  the  end  whereto  they  were  created,  or 
any  title  wherewith  they  were  at  first  intrusted,  is  all  wholly  the  effect 
of  the  first  sin,  and  is  in  solidum  to  be  ascribed  thereunto,  is  easily 
demonstrated ;  for, — 

(1.)  That  which  is  common  to  all  things  in  any  kind,  and  is  proper 
to  them  only  of  that  kind,  must  needs  have  some  common  cause 
equally  respecting  the  whole  kind :  but  now  of  the  evils  that  are  com 
mon  to  all  mankind,  and  peculiar  or  proper  to  them  and  every  one 
of  them,  there  can  be  no  cause  but  that  which  equally  concerns  them 
all;  which,  by  the  testimony  of  God  himself,  was  this  fall  of  Adam, 
Rom.  v.  12,  15-19. 

(2.)  The  evils  that  are  now  incumbent  upon  men  in  their  natural 
condition  (which  what  they  are  shall  be  afterward  considered)  were 
either  incumbent  on  them  at  their  first  creation,  before  the  sin  and 
fall  of  our  first  parents,  or  they  are  come  upon  them  since,  through 
some  interposing  cause  or  occasion.  That  they  were  not  in  them  or 
on  them,  that  they  were  not  liable  or  obnoxious  to  those  evils  which 
are  now  incumbent  on  them,  in  their  first  creation,  as  they  came 
forth  from  the  hand  of  God  (besides  what  was  said  before  of  the  state 
and  condition  wherein  man  was  created,  even  "upright"  in  the  sight 
of  God,  in  his  favour  and  acceptation,  no  way  obnoxious  to  his  anger 
and  wrath),  is  evident  by  the  light  of  this  one  consideration,  namely, 
that  there  was  nothing  in  man  nor  belonging  to  him,  no  respect,  no 
regard  or  relation,  but  what  was  purely  and  immediately  of  the 
holy  God's  creation  and  institution.  Now,  it  is  contrary  to  all  that  he 
hath  revealed  or  made  known  to  us  of  himself,  that  he  should  be  the 
immediate  author  of  so  much  evil  as  is  now,  by  his  own  testimony, 
in  man  by  nature,  and,  without  any  occasion,  of  so  much  vanity  and 
misery  as  he  is  subject  unto;  and,  besides,  directly  thwarting  the  tes 
timony  which  he  gave  of  all  the  works  of  his  hands,  that  they  were 
exceeding  good,  it  being  evident  that  man,  in  the  condition  whereof 
we  speak,  is  exceeding  evil. 

3.  If  ah1  the  evil  mentioned  hath  since  befallen  mankind,  then  it  hath 
done  so  either  by  some  chance  and  accident  whereof  God  was  not  aware, 
or  by  his  righteous  judgment  and  appointment,  in  reference  to  some 
procuring  and  justly-deserving  cause  of  such  a  punishment.   To  affirm 
the  first,  is  upon  the  matter  to  deny  him  to  be  God  ;  and  I  doubt  not 
but  that  men  at  as  easy  and  cheap  a  rate  of  sin  may  deny  that  there 
is  a  God,  as,  confessing  his  divine  essence,  to  turn  it  into  an  idol,  and 
by  making  thick  clouds,  as  Job  speaks,  to  interpose  between  him  and 


the  affairs  of  the  world,  to  exclude  his  energetical  providence  in  the 
disposal  of  all  the  works  of  his  hands.  If  the  latter  be  affirmed,  I  ask, 
as  before,  what  other  common  cause,  wherein  all  and  every  one  of 
mankind  is  equally  concerned,  can  be  assigned  of  the  evils  mentioned, 
as  the  procurement  of  the  wrath  and  vengeance  of  God,  from  whence 
they  are,  but  only  the  fall  of  Adam,  the  sin  of  our  first  parents,  espe 
cially  considering  that  the  Holy  Ghost  doth  so  expressly  point  out 
this  fountain  and  source  of  the  evils  insisted  on,  Rom.  v.  12,  15-19? 

4.  These  things,  then,  being  premised,  it  will  quickly  appear  that 
every  one  of  the  particulars  rejected  by  Mr  B.  from  being  fruits  or 
effects  of  the  first  sin  are  indeed  the  proper  issues  of  it ;  and  though 
Mr  B.  cut  the  roll  of  the  abominations  and  corruptions  of  the  nature 
of  man  by  sin,  and  cast  it  into  the  fire,  yet  we  may  easily  write  it 
again,  and  add  many  more  words  of  the  like  importance. 

The  first  effect  or  fruit  of  the  first  sin  rejected  by  Mr.  B.  is,  "  its 
rendering  men  guilty  of  hell-fire ;"  but  the  Scripture  seems  to  be  of 
another  mind,  Rom.  v.  12,  "  Wherefore,  as  by  one  man  sin  entered 
into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin;  and  so  death  passed  upon  all 
men,  for  that  all  have  sinned."  That  all  men  sinned  in  Adam,  that 
they  contracted  the  guilt  of  the  same  death  with  him,  that  death 
entered  by  sin,  the  Holy  Ghost  is  express  in.  The  death  here  men 
tioned  is  that  which  God  threatened  to  Adam  if  he  did  transgress, 
Gen.  ii.  17;  which  that  it  was  not  death  temporal  only,  yea  not  at  all, 
Mr  B.  contends  by  denying  mortality  to  be  a  fruit  of  this  sin,  as 
also  excluding  in  this  very  query  all  room  for  death  spiritual,  which 
consists  in  the  defacing  of  the  image  of  God  in  us,  which  he  with 
this  rejects :  and  what  death  remains  but  that  which  hath  hell  fol 
lowing  after  it  we  shall  afterward  consider. 

Besides,  that  death  which  Christ  died  to  deliver  us  from  was  that 
which  we  were  obnoxious  to  upon  the  account  of  the  first  sin  ;  for  he 
came  to  "  save  that  which  was  lost,"  and  tasted  death  to  deliver  us 
from  death,  dying  to  "  deliver  them  who  through  fear  of  death  were 
all  their  lifetime  subject  to  bondage,"  Heb.  ii.  15.  But  that  this  was 
such  a  death  as  hath  hell-fire  attending  it,  he  manifests  by  affirming 
that  he  "  delivers  us  from  the  wrath  to  come."  By  "  hell-fire"  we 
understand  nothing  but  the  "wrath  of  God"  for  sin;  into  whose  hands 
it  is  a  fearful  thing  to  fall,  our  God  being  a  consuming  fire.  That  the 
guilt  of  every  sin  is  this  death  whereof  we  speak,  that  hath  both 
curse  and  wrath  attending  it,  and  that  it  is  the  proper  "wages  of  sin," 
the  testimony  of  God  is  evident,  Rom.  vi.  23.  What  other  death 
men  are  obnoxious  to  on  the  account  of  the  first  sin,  that  hath  not 
these  concomitants,  Mr  B.  hath  not  as  yet  revealed.  "  By  nature," 
also,  we  are  "  children  of  wrath,"  Eph.  ii.  3.  And  on  what  foot  of 
account  our  obnoxiousness  now  by  nature  unto  wrath  is  to  be  stated, 
is  sufficiently  evident  by  the  light  of  the  preceding  considerations. 


The  "  defacing  of  the  image  of  God  in  us"  by  this  sin,  as  it  i<? 
usually  asserted,  is  in  the  next  place  denied.  That  man  was  created 
in  the  image  of  God,  and  wherein  that  image  of  God  doth  consist, 
were  before  declared.  That  we  are  now  born  with  that  character 
upon  us,  as  it  was  at  first  enstamped  upon  us,  must  be  affirmed,  or 
some  common  cause  of  the  defect  that  is  in  us,  wherein  all  and  every 
one  of  the  posterity  of  Adam  are  equally  concerned,  besides  that  of 
the  first  sin,  is  to  be  assigned.  That  this  latter  cannot  be  done  hath 
been  already  declared.  He  that  shall  undertake  to  make  good'  the 
former  must  engage  in  a  more  difficult  work  than  Mr  B.,  in  the 
midst  of  his  other  employments,  is  willing  to  undertake.  To  insist 
on  all  particulars  relating  to  the  image  of  God  in  man,  how  far  it  is 
defaced,  whether  any  thing  properly  and  directly  thereunto  belonging 
be  yet  left  remaining  in  us ;  to  declare  how  far  our  souls,  in  respect  of 
their  immortal  substance,  faculties,  and  consciences,  and  our  persons, 
in  respect  of  that  dominion  over  the  creatures  which  yet,  by  God's 
gracious  and  merciful  providence,  we  retain,  may  be  said  to  bear 
the  image'of  God, — is  a  work  of  another  nature  than  what  I  am  now 
engaged  in.  For  the  asserting  of  what  is  here  denied  by  Mr  B.,  con 
cerning  the  defacing  of  the  image  of  God  in  us  by  sin,  no  more  is 
required  but  only  the  tender  of  some  demonstrations  to  the  main  of 
our  intendment  in  the  assertion  touching  the  loss  by  the  first  sin,  and 
our  present  want,  in  the  state  of  nature,  of  that  righteousness  and 
holiness  wherein  man  at  his  first  creation  stood  before  God  (in  re 
ference  unto  the  end  whereunto  he  was  created),  in  uprightness  and 
ability  of  walking  unto  all  well-pleasing.  And  as  this  will  be  fully 
manifested  in  the  consideration  of  the  ensuing  particulars  instanced 
in  by  Mr  B.,  so  it  is  sufficiently  clear  and  evident  from  the  renovation 
of  that  image  which  we  have  by  Jesus  Christ ;  and  that  is  expressed 
both  in  general  and  in  all  the  particulars  wherein  we  affirm  that 
image  to  be  defaced.  "  The  new  man,"  which  we  put  on  in  Jesus 
Christ,  which  "  is  renewed  in  knowledge  after  the  image  of  him  that 
created  him,"  Col.  iii.  10,  is  that  which  we  want,  by  sin's  defacing 
(suo  more)  of  that  image  of  God  in  us  which  we  had  in  knowledge. 
So  Eph.  iv.  23,  24,  that  new  man  is  said  to  consist  in  the  "  renewing 
of  our  mind,  whereby  after  God  we  are  created  in  righteousness  and 
holiness."  So,  then,  whereas  we  were  created  in  the  image  of  God, 
in  righteousness  and  holiness,  and  are  to  be  renewed  again  by  Christ 
into  the  same  condition  of  his  image  in  righteousness  and  holiness, 
we  doubt  not  to  affirm  that  by  the  first  sin  (the  only  interposition  of 
general  concernment  to  all  the  sons  of  men)  the  image  of  God  in 
us  was  exceedingly  defaced.  In  sum,  that  which  made  us  sinners 
brought  sin  and  death  upon  us;  that  which  made  us  liable  to  condem 
nation,  that  defaced  the  image  of  God  in  us;  and  that  all  this  was  done 
by  the  first  sin  the  apostle  plainly  asserts,  Rom.  v.  12, 15, 17-19,  etc. 


To  the  next  particular  effect  of  sin  by  Mr  B.  rejected,  "  the  dark 
ening  of  our  understandings,"  I  shall  only  inquire  of  him  whether 
God  made  us  at  first  with  our  understandings  dark  and  ignorant  as 
to  those  things  which  are  of  absolute  necessity  that  we  should  be  ac 
quainted  withal,  for  the  attainment  of  the  end  whereunto  he  made 
us  ?  For  once  I  will  suppose  he  will  not  affirm  it ;  and  shall  there 
fore  proceed  one  step  farther,  and  ask  him  whether  there  be  not 
such  a  darkness  now  upon  us  by  nature,  opposed  unto  that  light, 
that  spiritual  and  saving  knowledge,  which  is  of  absolute  necessity 
for  every  one  to  have  and  be  furnished  withal  that  will  again  attain 
that  image  of  God  which  we  are  born  short  of.  Now,  because  this  is 
that  which  will  most  probably  be  denied,  I  shall,  by  the  way,  only 
desire  him, — 

1.  To  cast  aside  all  the  places  of  Scripture  where  it  is  positively 
and  punctually  asserted  that  we  are  so  dark  and  blind,  and  darkness 
itself,  in  the  things  of  God ;  and  then, 

2.  All  those  where  it  is  no  less  punctually  and  positively  asserted 
that  Christ  gives  us  light,  knowledge,  understanding,  which  of  our 
selves  we  have  not.     And  if  he  be  not  able  to  do  so,  then, 

3.  To  tell  me  whether  the  darkness  mentioned  in  the  former 
places  and  innumerable  others,  and  [of  which  mention  is  made],  as 
to  the  manner  and  cause  of  its  removal  and  taking  away,  in  the 
latter,  be  part  of  that  death  which  passed  on  all  men  "by  the  offence 
of  one,"  or  by  what  other  chance  it  is  come  upon  us. 

Of  the  "  enslaving  of  our  wills,  and  the  depriving  us  of  power  to 
do  good,"  there  is  the  same  reason  as  of  that  next  before.  It  is  not 
my  purpose  to  handle  the  common-place  of  the  corruption  of  nature 
by  sin:  nor  can  I  say  that  it  is  well  for  Mr  B.  that  he  finds  none  of 
those  effects  of  sin  in  himself,  nothing  of  darkness,  bondage,  or  dis 
ability,  or  if  he  do,  that  he  knows  where  to  charge  it,  and  not  on 
himself  and  the  depravedness  of  his  own  nature;  and  that  because 
I  know  none  who  are  more  desperately  sick  than  those  who,  by  a 
fever  of  pride,  have  lost  the  sense  of  their  own  miserable  condition. 
Only  to  stop  him  in  his  haste  from  rejecting  the  evils  mentioned 
from  being  effects  or  consequences  of  the  first  sin,  I  desire  him  to 
peruse  a  little  the  ensuing  scriptures;  and  I  take  them  as  they  come 
to  mind  :  Eph.  ii.  1-3,  5 ;  John  v.  25 ;  Matt.  viii.  22 ;  Eph.  v.  8 ; 
Luke  iv.  18;  2  Tim.  ii.  25,  26;  John  viii.  34;  Rom.  vi.  16;  Gen. 
vi.  5  ;  Rom.  vii.  5  ;  John  iii.  6 ;  1  Cor.  ii.  14 ;  Rom.  iii.  12 ;  Acts 
viii.  31 ;  John  v.  40 ;  Rom.  viii.  7;  Jer.  xiii.  23,  etc. 

The  last  thing  denied  is  its  "  causing  mortality."  God  threaten 
ing  man  with  death  if  he  sinned,  Gen.  ii.  17,  seems  to  instruct  us 
that  if  he  had  not  sinned  he  should  not  have  died ;  and  upon  his 
sin,  affirming  that  on  that  account  he  should  be  dissolved  and  return 
to  his  dust,  Gen.  iii.  19,  no  less  evidently  convinces  us  that  his 


sin  caused  mortality  actually  and  in  the  event.  The  apostle,  also, 
affirming  that  "  death  entered  by  sin,  and  passed  upon  all,  inasmuch 
as  all  have  sinned,"  seems  to  be  of  our  mind.  Neither  can  any 
other  sufficient  cause  be  assigned  on  the  account  whereof  innocent 
man  should  have  been  actually  mortal  or  eventually  have  died. 
Mr  B.,  it  seems,  is  of  another  persuasion,  and,  for  the  confirmation 
of  his  judgment,  gives  you  the  words  of  the  curse  of  God  to  man 
upon  his  sinning,  "  Dust  thou  art,  and  unto  dust  shalt  thou  return ;" 
the  strength  of  his  reason  therein  lying  in  this,  that  if  God  de 
nounced  the  sentence  of  mortality  on  man  after  sinning,  and  for 
his  sin,  then  mortality  was  not  an  effect  of  sin,  but  man  was  mortal 
before  in  the  state  of  innocency.  Who  doubts  but  that  at  this  rate 
he  may  be  able  to  prove  what  he  pleases  ? 

A  brief  declaration  of  our  sense  in  ascribing  immortality  to  the 
first  man  in  the  state  of  innocency,  that  none  may  be  mistaken  in  the 
expressions  used,  may  put  a  close  to  our  consideration  of  this  chap 
ter.  In  respect  of  his  own  essence  and  being,  as  also  of  all  outward 
and  extrinsical  causes,  God  alone  is  eminently  and  perfectly  immor 
tal;  he  only  in  that  sense  hath  "life  and  immortality."1  Angels  and 
souls  of  men,  immaterial  substances,  are  immortal  as  to  their  intrinsi- 
cal  essence,  free  from  principles  of  corruption  and  mortality ;  but  yet 
are  obnoxious  to  it  in  respect  of  that  outward  cause  (or  the  power  of 
God),  which  can  at  any  time  reduce  them  into  nothing.  The  immor 
tality  we  ascribe  to  man  in  innocency  is  only  an  assured  preservation 
by  the  power  of  God  from  actual  dying,  notwithstanding  the  possi 
bility  thereof  which  he  was  in  upon  the  account  of  the  constitution 
of  his  person,  and  the  principles  thereunto  concurring.  So  that 
though  from  his  own  nature  he  had  a  possibility  of  dying,  and  in  that 
sense  was  mortal,  yet  God's  institution  assigning  him  life  in  the  way 
of  obedience,  he  had  a  possibility  of  not  dying,  and  was  in  that  sense 
immortal,  as  hath  been  declared.3  If  any  one  desire  farther  satisfaction 
herein,  let  him  consult  Johannes  Junius'  answer  to  Socinus'  Pre 
lections,  in  the  first  chapter  whereof  he  pretends  to  answer  in  proof 
the  assertion  in  title,  "  Primus  homo  ante  lapsum  natura  mortalis 
fuit ;"  wherein  he  partly  mistakes  the  thing  in  question,  which  re- 

1  "  Ulud  corpus  ante  peccatum,  et  mortale  secundum  aliam,  et  immortale  secundum 
aliam  causam  dici  poterat ;  id  est,  mortale  quia  poterat  mori,  immortale  quia  poterat 
non  mori.     Aliud  est  enim  non  posse  mori,  sicut  quasdam  naturas  immortales  creavit 
Deus,  aliud  est  autem  posse  non  mori ;  secundum  quern  modum  primus  creatus  est 
homo  immortalis,  quod  ei  prsestabatur  de  ligno  vitae,  non  de  constitutione  naturae  ;  a 
quo  ligno  separatus  est  cum  peccasset,  ut  posset  mori,  qui  nisi  peccasset  posset  non 
mori.     Mortalis  ergo  erat  conditione  corporis  animalis,  immortalis  autem  beneficio  con- 
ditoris.     Si  enim  corpus  animale,  utique  et  mortale,  quia  et  mori  pcterat,  quamvis  et 
immortale  dico,  quia  et  mori  non  poterat." — Aug.  torn.  iii.  de  Genesi  ad  literam,  lib.  vi. 
cap.  xxiv. 

2  "  Quincunque  dicit  Adam  primum  hominem  mortalem  factum,  ita  ut  sive  peccaret 
give  non  peccaret,  moreretur  in  corpore,  hoc  est  de  corpore  exiret  non  peccati  merito  sed 
necessitate  natures,  anathema  sit." — Cone.  Milevitan,  cap.  i- 


spects  not  the  constitution  of  man's  nature,  but  the  event  of  the  con 
dition  wherein  he  was  created,1  and  himself  in  another  place  states 
it  better.2 

The  sum  of  the  whole  may  be  reduced  to  what  follows  : — Simply 
and  absolutely  immortal  is  God  only :  "  He  only  hath  immortality," 
1  Tim.  vi.  1 6.  Immortal  in  respect  of  its  whole  substance  or  essence 
is  that  which  is  separate  from  all  matter,  which  is  the  principle  of  cor 
ruption,  as  angels,  or  is  not  educed  from  the  power  of  it,  whither  of 
its  own  accord  it  should  again  resolve,  as  the  souls  of  men.  The  bodies 
also  of  the  saints  in  heaven,  yea,  and  of  the  wicked  in  hell,  shall  be 
immortal,  though  in  their  own  natures  corruptible,  being  changed  and 
preserved  by  the  power  of  God.  Adam  was  mortal  as  to  the  consti 
tution  of  his  body,  which  was  apt  to  die ;  immortal  in  respect  of  his 
soul  in  its  own  substance  ;  immortal  in  their  union  by  God's  appoint 
ment,  and  from  his  preservation  upon  his  continuance  in  obedience. 
By  the  composition  of  his  body  before  his  fall,  he  had  a  posse  mori; 
by  the  appointment  of  God,  a  posse  non  mori ;  by  his  fall,  a  non 
posse  non  mori. 

In  this  estate,  on  his  disobedience,  he  was  threatened  with  death; 
and  therefore  was  obedience  the  tenure  whereby  he  held  his  grant  of 
immortality,  which  on  his  neglect  he  was  penally  to  be  deprived  of. 
In  that  estate  he  had, —  (1.)  The  immortality  mentioned,  or  a  power 
of  not  dying,  from  the  appointment  of  God  ;  (2.)  An  uprightness  and 
integrity  of  his  person  before  God,  with  an  ability  to  walk  with  him 
in  all  the  obedience  he  required,  being  made  in  the  image  of  God 
and  upright ;  (3.)  A  right,  upon  his  abode  in  that  condition,  to  an 
eternally  blessed  life ;  which  he  should  (4.)  actually  have  enjoyed, 
for  he  had  a  pledge  of  it  in  the  "  tree  of  life  "  He  lost  it  for  himself 
and  us ;  which  if  he  never  had  it  he  could  not  do.  The  death  where 
with  he  was  threatened  stood  in  opposition  to  all  these,  it  being 
.  most  ridiculous  to  suppose  that  any  thing  penal  in  the  Scripture 
comes  under  the  name  of  "death"  that  was  not  here  threatened  to 
Adam ; — death  of  the  body,  in  a  deprivation  of  his  immortality  spoken 
of;  of  the  soul  spiritually,  in  sin,  by  the  loss  of  his  righteousness  and 
integrity;  of  both,  in  their  obnoxiousness  to  death  eternal;  actually 
to  be  undergone,  without  deliverance  by  Christ,  in  opposition  to  the 
right  to  a  better,  a  blessed  condition,  which  he  had.  That  all  these 
are  penal,  and  called  in  the  Scriptures  by  the  name  of  "  death,"  is 
evident  to  all  that  take  care  to  know  what  is  contained  in  them. 

For  a  close,  then,  of  this  chapter  and  discourse,  let  us  also  propose  a 
few  questions  as  to  the  matter  under  consideration,  and  see  what  an 
swer  the  Scripture  will  positively  give  in  to  our  inquiries : — 

1  "  Qusestio  est  dc  immortalitate  hominis  hujus  concreti,  ex  anima  et  corpore  conflati. 
Qua  ado  loquor  de  morte,  de  dissolutione  hujus  concreti  loquor." — Socin.  contra  Puo- 
cium,  p.  228. 

2  Vid.  Rivet.  Exercit.  in  Gen.  cap.  i.  Exercit.  9. 

152         ."  VlNDICI-E  EVANGELIC^. 

First,  then, — 

Ques.  1.  In  what  state  and  condition  was  man  at  first  created  f 

Ans.  "  God  created  man  in  his  own  image,  in  the  image  of  God 
created  he  him;  male  and  female  created  he  them,"  Gen.  i.  27.  "And 
God  saw  every  thing  that  he  had  made,  and,  behold,  it  was  very 
good,"  verse  31.  "  In  the  image  of  God  made  he  man,"  chap.  ix.  6. 
"  Lo,  this  only  have  I  found,  that  God  hath  made  man  UPRIGHT," 
Eccles.  vii.  29.  "Put  on  the  new  man,  which  after  God  is  created  in 
righteousness  and  true  holiness,"  Eph.  iv.  24.  "  Put  on  the  new  man, 
which  is  renewed  in  knowledge  after  the  image  of  him  that  created 
him,"  Col.  iii.  10. 

Q.  2.  Should  our  first  parents  have  died  had  they  not  sinned,  or 
were  they  obnoxious  to  death  in  the  state  ofinnocency? 

A.  "And  the  LORD  God  commanded  the  man,  saying,  Of  every 
tree  of  the  garden  thou  mayest  freely  eat :  but  of  the  tree  of  the 
knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it :  for  in  the  day 
that  thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die,"  Gen.  ii.  16,  17.  "  By 
one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin ;  and  so  death 
passed  upon  all  men,  for  that  all  have  sinned,"  Rom.  v.  1 2.  "  For  the 
wages  of  sin  is  death,"  chap.  vi.  23. 

Q.  3.  Are  we  now,  since  the  fall,  born  with  the  image  of  God  so 
enstamped  on  us  as  at  our  first  creation  in  Adam? 

A.  "  All  have  sinned,  and  come  short  of  the  glory  of  God,"  Rom. 
iii.  23.  "Lo,  this  only  have  I  found,  that  God  hath  made  man 
upright ;  but  they  have  sought  out  many  inventions,"  Eccles.  vii.  29. 
"  So  then  they  that  are  in  the  flesh  cannot  please  God,"  Rom.  viii.  8. 
"  And  you  who  were  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins,"  Eph.  ii.  1.  "  For 
we  ourselves  also  were  sometimes  foolish,  disobedient,  deceived, 
serving  divers  lusts  and  pleasures,  living  in  malice  and  envy,  hateful, 
and  hating  one  another,"  Titus  iii.  3.  "The  old  man  is  corrupt 
according  to  the  deceitful  lusts,"  Eph.  iv.  22. 

Q.  4.  Are  we  now  born  approved  of  God  and  accepted  with  him, 
as  when  we  were  first  created,  or  what  is  our  condition  now  by 
nature?  what  say  the  Scriptures  hereunto? 

A.  "  We  were  by  nature  the  children  of  wrath,  even  as  others/' 
Eph.  ii.  3.  "  Except  a  man  be  born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  king 
dom  of  God,"  John  iii.  3.  "  He  that  believeth  not  the  Son,  the 
wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him,"  verse  36.  "  That  which  is  born  of 
the  flesh  is  flesh,"  John  ifi.  6. 

Q.  4.  Are  our  understandings  by  nature  able  to  discern  the  things 
of  God,  or  are  they  darkened  and  blind? 

A.  "  The  natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of 
God ;  for  they  are  foolishness  unto  him :  neither  can  he  know  them, 
because  they  are  spiritually  discerned,"  1  Cor.  ii.  14.  "The  light 
shineth  in  darkness;  and  the  darkness  comprehended  it  not,"  John 


i.  5.  "  To  preach  deliverance  to  the  captives,  and  recovering  of  sight 
to  the  blind,"  Luke  iv.  18.  "Having  the  understanding  darkened, 
being  alienated  from  the  life  of  God,  through  the  ignorance  that  is 
in  them,  because  of  the  blindness  of  their  heart,"  Eph.  iv.  18.  "  Ye 
were  sometimes  darkness,  but  now  are  ye  light  in  the  Lord,"  chap. 
v.  8.  "  For  God,  who  commanded  the  light  to  shine  out  of  darkness, 
hath  shined  in  our  hearts,  to  give  the  light  of  the  knowledge  of  the 
glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ,"  2  Cor.  iv.  6.  "  And  we 
know  that  the  Son  of  God  is  come,  and  hath  given  us  an  under 
standing,  that  we  may  know  him  that  is  true,"  1  John  v.  20. 

Q.  5.  Are  we  able  to  do  those  things  now,  in  the  state  of  nature, 
which  are  spiritually  good  and  acceptable  to  God  ? 

A.  "  The  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God  ;  for  it  is  not  subject 
to  the  law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can  be,"  Rom.  viii.  7.  "  You  were 
dead  in  trespasses  and  sins,"  Eph.  ii.  1.  "  The  imagination  of  man's 
heart  is  evil  from  his  youth,"  Gen.  viii.  21.  "  Can  the  Ethiopian 
change  his  skin,  or  the  leopard  his  spots  ?  then  may  ye  also  do  good, 
that  are  accustomed  to  do  evil,"  Jer.  xiii.  23.  "  For  without  me  ye 
can  do  nothing,"  John  xv.  5.  "Not  that  we  are  sufficient  of  our 
selves  to  think  any  thing  as  of  ourselves ;  but  our  sufficiency  is  of 
God,"  2  Cor.  iii.  5.  "  For  I  know  that  in  me  (that  is,  in  my  flesh) 
dwelleth  no  good  thing,"  Horn.  vii.  18. 

Q.  6.  How  came  we  into  this  miserable  state  and  condition  ? 

A.  "  Behold,  I  was  shapen  in  iniquity;  and  in  sin  did  my  mother 
conceive  me,"  Ps.  li.  5.  "Who  can  bring  a  clean  thing  out  of  an 
unclean?  not  one,"  Job  xiv.  4.  "That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh 
is  flesh,"  John  iii.  6.  "Wherefore,  as  by  one  man  sin  entered  into 
the  world,  and  death  by  sin;  so  death  passed  upon  all  men,  for  that 
all  have  sinned,"  Rom.  v.  12. 

Q.  7-  Is,  then,  the  guilt  of  the  first  sin  of  our  first  parents  reckoned 
unto  us? 

A.  "  But  not  as  the  offence,  so  also  is  the  free  gift.  For  through 
the  offence  of  one  many  be  dead,"  Rom.  v.  15.  "  And  not  as  it  was 
by  one  that  sinned,  so  is  the  gift:  for  the  judgment  was  by  one  to 
condemnation,"  verse  16.  "  For  by  one  man's  offence  death  reigned," 
verse  17.  "Therefore  by  the  offence  of  one  judgment  came  upon 
all  men  to  condemnation,"  verse  18.  "  By  one  man's  disobedience 
many  were  made  sinners,"  verse  1 9. 

Thus,  and  much  more  fully,  doth  the  Scripture  set  out  and  declare 
the  condition  of  man  both  before  and  after  the  fall ;  concerning  which, 
although  the  most  evident  demonstration  of  the  latter  lies  in  the 
revelation  made  of  the  exceeding  efficacy  of  that  power  and  grace 
which  God  in  Christ  puts  forth  for  our  conversion  and  delivery  from 
that  state  and  condition  before  described,  yet  so  much  is  spoken  of 
this  dark  side  of  it  as  will  render  vain  the  attempts  of  any  who  shall 


endeavour  to  plead  the  cause  of  corrupted  nature,  or  alleviate  the 
guilt  of  the  first  sin. 

It  may  not  be  amiss,  in  the  winding  up  of  the  whole,  to  give  the 
reader  a  brief  account  of  what  slight  thoughts  this  gentleman  and  his 
companions  have  concerning  this  whole  matter  of  the  state  and  con 
dition  of  the  first  man,  his  fall  or  sin,  and  the  interest  of  all  his  pos 
terity  therein,  which  confessedly  lie  at  the  bottom  of  that  whole 
dispensation  of  grace  in  Jesus  Christ  which  is  revealed  in  the  gospel. 

First.  [As]  for  Adam  himself,  they  are  so  remote  from  assigning 
to  him  any  eminency  of  knowledge,  righteousness,  or  holiness,  in  the 
state  wherein  he  was  created,  that,  — 

1.  For  his  knowledge,  they  say,  "  He  was  a  mere  great  baby,  that 
knew  not  that  he  was  naked  ;"1  so  also  taking  away  the  difference 
between  the  simple  knowledge  of  nakedness  in  innocency,  and  the 
knowledge  joined  with  shame  that  followed  sin.     "  Of  his  wife  he 
knew  no  more  but  what  occurred  to  his  senses;"3  though  the  ex 
pressions  which  he  used  at  first  view  and  sight  of  her  do  plainly  argue 
another  manner  of  apprehension,  Gen.  ii.  23.    For  "  the  tree  of  the 
knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  he  knew  not  the  virtue  of  it;"3  which 
yet  I  know  not  how  it  well  agrees  with  another  place  of  the  same 
author,  where  he  concludes  that  in  the  state  of  innocency  there  was 
in  Adam  a  real  predominancy  of  the  natural  appetite,  which  conquered 
or  prevailed  to  the  eating  of  the  fruit  of  that  tree.4     Also,  that  being 
mortal,  he  knew  not  himself  to  be  so.5     The  sum  is,  he  was  even  a 
very  beast,  that  knew  neither  himself,  his  duty,  nor  the  will  of  God 
concerning  him. 

2.  [As]  for  his  righteousness  and  holiness,  which,  as  was  said  before, 
because  he  was  made  upright,  in  the  image  of  God,  we  ascribe  unto 
him,  Socinus  contends  in  one  whole  chapter  in  his  Prelections,  "  that 
he  was  neither  just,  nor  holy,  nor  ought  to  be  so  esteemed  nor  called."6 

And  Smalcius,  in  his  confutation  of  Franzius'  "  Theses  de  Peccato 
Originali,"  all  along  derides  and  laughs  to  scorn  the  apprehension  or 
persuasion  that  Adam  was  created  in  righteousness  and  holiness,  or 
that  ever  he  lost  any  thing  of  the  image  of  God,  or  that  ever  he  had 

1  "  Adamus  instar  infantis  vel  pueri  se  nudum  esse  ignoraTit." — Smalc.  de  Ver.  Dei 
Fil.  cap.  vii.  p.  2. 

2  "De  conjuge  propria,  non  nisi  sensibus  obvia cognovit." — Socin.  de  Stat.  Prim.  Horn, 
cap.  iv.  p.  119. 

3  "  Vim  arboris  scientiee  boni  et  mali  perspectam  nonhabuerit." — Idem  ibid,  p.  197. 
*  Socin.  Prselect.  cap.  iii.  p.  8. 

4  "  Cum  ipse  mortalis  esset,  se  tamen  mortalem  esse  nesciverit." — Socin.  de  Stat. 
Prim.  Horn.  cap.  iv.  p.  118. 

8  "  Utrum  primus  homo  ante  peccatum  justitiam  aliquam  originalem  habuerit  ? 
Plerique  omnes  eum  illam  habuisse  affirmant.  Sed  ego  scire  velim  .  .  .  concludamus 
igitur,  Adamum,  etiam  antequam  mandatum  illud  Dei  transgrederetur,  revera  justum 
non  fuisse.  Cum  nee  impeccabilis  esset,  nee  ullum  peccandi  occasionem  habuisset ;  vel 
certe  justum  eum  fuisse  affirmari  non  posse,  cum  nullo  modo  constet,  eum  ulla  ratione 
a  peccando  abstinuisse." — Socin.  Pnelect.  cap.  iii.  p.  8;  vid.  cap.  iv.  p.  11. 


any  thing  of  the  image  of  God  beyond  or  besides  that  dominion  over 
the  creatures  which  God  gave  him.1 

Most  of  the  residue  of  the  herd,  describing  the  estate  and  condition 
of  man  in  his  creation,  do  wholly  omit  any  mention  of  any  moral 
uprightness  in  him.3 

And  this  is  the  account  these  gentlemen  give  us  concerning  the 
condition  and  state  wherein  the  first  man  was  of  God  created :  A 
heavy  burden  of  the  earth  it  seems  he  was,  that  had  neither  righteous 
ness  nor  holiness  whereby  he  might  be  enabled  to  walk  before  God 
in  reference  to  that  great  end  whereunto  he  was  created,  nor  any 
knowledge  of  God,  himself,  or  his  duty. 

Secondly.  [As]  for  his  sin,  the  great  master  of  their  family  disputes 
that  it  was  a  bare  transgression  of  that  precept  of  "not  eating  the  fruit 
of  the  tree  oi'  knowledge  of  good  and  evil/'  and  that  his  nature  was 
not  vitiated  or  corrupted  thereby:3  wherein  he  is  punctually  followed 
by  the  Racovian  Catechism,  which  also  giveth  this  reason  why  his 
nature  was  not  depraved  by  it,  namely,  because  it  was  but  one  act; 
— so  light  are  their  thoughts  and  expressions  of  that  great  trans 
gression  ! 4 

Thirdly.  [As]  for  his  state  and  condition,  they  all,  with  open 
mouth,  cry  out  that  he  was  mortal  and  obnoxious  to  death,  which 
should  in  a  natural  way  have  come  upon  him  though  he  had  not 
sinned.5  But  of  this  before. 

Fourthly.  Farther ;  that  the  posterity  of  Adam  were  no  way  con 
cerned,  as  to  their  spiritual  prejudice,  in  that  sin  of  his,  as  though  they 
should  either  partake  of  the  guilt  of  it  or  have  their  nature  vitiated 
or  corrupted  thereby ;  but  that  the  whole  doctrine  of  original  sin  is  a 
figment  of  Austin  and  the  schoolmen  that  followed  him,  is  the  con- 

1  "  Fit  mentio  destitutionis  vel  carentiae  divinae  gloriae,  ergo  privationis  imaginis 
Dei  et  justitiae  et  sanctitatis,  ejusque  originalis ;  fit  mentio  carentiae  divinae  glorias,  ergo 
in  creatione  cum  homine  fuit  communicata :  o  ineptias!" — Smalc.  Refut.  Thes.  dePeccat. 
.  Orig.  disput.  2,  p.  42.  "  Porro  ait  Franzius,  Paulura  mox  e  vestigio  imaginem  Dei, 
seu  novum  hominem  ita  explicare,  quod  fuerit  conditus  primus  homo  ad  justitiam  et 
sanctimoniam  veram.  Hie  cum  erroribus  fallacioe,  etiam  et  fortassis  voluntarigc,  sunt 
commixtse.  .  .  .  Videat  lector  benevolus  quanti  sit  facienda  illatio  Franzii,  dum  ait, 
ergo  imago  Dei  in  homine  ante  lapsum  consistebat  in  concreata  justitia  et  vera  sancti- 
monia  primorum  parentum.  Si  htec  non  sunt  scopae  dissolutse,  equidem  nescio  quid 
eas  tandem  nominabimur." — Smalc.  ubi  sup.  pp.  50,  61. 

3  Volkel.  de  Vera  Eelig.  lib.  ii.  cap.  vi.  p.  9,  edit,  cum  lib.  Crell.  de  Deo. 

1  Socin.  Praelect.  cap.  iii.  p.  8. 

*  "  Etenim  unum  illud  peccatum  per  se,  non  modo  universos  posteros,  sed  ne  ipsum 
quidem  Adamum,  corrumpendi  vim  habere  potuit.  Dei  vero  consilio,  in  peccati  illius 
paenam  id  factum  fuisse,  nee  usquam  legitur,  et  plane  incredibile  est,  imo  impium  id 
cogitare." — Socin.  Praalect.  cap.  iv.  sec.  4,  p.  13.  "  Lapsus .  Adami,  cum  unus  actus 
fuerit,  viin  earn,  quae  depravare  ipsam  naturam  Adami,  multo  minus  posterorum  ipsius 
posset,  habere  non  potuit.  Ipsi  vero  in  paenam  irrogatum  fuisse,  nee  Scriptura  docet, 
ut  superius  exposuimus,  et  Deum  ilium,  qui  omnis  aequitatis  fons  est,  incredibile  prorsus 
est  id  facere  voluisse." — Cat.  Eac.  de  Cognit.  Christ,  cap.  x.  ques.  2. 

5  "  De  Adamo,  eum  immortalem  creatum  non  fuisse,  res  apertissima  est.  Nam  ex 
terra  creatus,  cibis  usus,  liberis  gignendis  destinatus,  et  animalis  ante  lapsum  fuit." — 
Smalc.  de  Divin.  Jes.  Christ,  cap.  vii.  de  promisso  vitae  scternas. 


stant  clamour  of  them  all.1  And  indeed  this  is  the  great  foundation 
of  all  or  the  greatest  part  of  their  religion.  Hence  are  the  necessity 
of  the  satisfaction  and  merit  of  Christ,  the  efficacy  of  grace,  and  the 
power  of  the  Spirit  in  conversion,  decried.  On  this  account  is  salva 
tion  granted,  by  them,  without  Christ,  a  power  of  keeping  all  the 
commandments  asserted,  and  justification  upon  our  obedience.  Of 
which  in  the  process  of  our  discourse. 

Such  are  the  thoughts,  such  are  the  expressions,  of  Mr  B.'s  masters 
concerning  this  whole  matter.  Such  was  Adam  in  their  esteem, 
such  was  his  fall,  and  such  our  concernment  therein.2  He  had  no 
righteousness,  no  holiness  (yea,  Socinus  at  length  confesses  that  he 
did  not  believe  his  soul  was  immortal3);  we  contracted  no  guilt  in 
him,  derive  no  pollution  from  him.  Whether  these  men  are  in  any 
measure  acquainted  with  the  plague  of  their  own  hearts,  the  severity 
and  spirituality  of  the  law  of  God,  with  that  redemption  which  is 
in  the  blood  of  Jesus,  the  Lord  will  one  day  manifest;  but  into  their 
secret  let  not  my  soul  descend. 

Lest  the  weakest  or  meanest  reader  should  be  startled  with  the 
mention  of  these  things,  not  finding  himself  ready  furnished  with 
arguments  from  Scripture  to  disprove  the  boldness  and  folly  of  these 
men  in  their  assertions,  I  shall  add  some  few  arguments  whereby 
the  severals  by  them  denied  and  opposed  are  confirmed  from  the 
Scriptures,  the  places  before  mentioned  being  in  them  cast  into  that 
form  and  method  wherein  they  are  readily  subservient  to  the  pur 
pose  in  hand : — 

First.    That  man  was  created  in  the  image  of  God,  in  knowledge, 

1  "  Concludimus  igitur,  nullum,  improprie  etiam  loquendo,  peccatum  originate  esse ; 
id  est,  ex  peccato  illo  primi  parentis  nullam  labem  aut  pravitatem  universe  humano 
generi  necessario  ingenitam  esse,  sive  inflictam  quodammodo  fuisse." — Socin.  Prselect. 
cap.  iv.  sect.  4,  pp.  13,  14.     "  Peccatum  originis  nullum  prorsusest,  quare  nee  liberum 
arbitrium  vitiare  potuit.     Nee  enim  e  Scriptura  id  peccatum  originis  doceri  potest." — 

Cat.  Rac.  de  Cognit.  Christ,  cap.  x.  de  Lib.  Arbit.    "  Quaedam  ex  falsissimis  prin- 

cipiis  deducuntur.      In  illo  genere  illud  potissimum  est,  quod  ex  peccato  (ut  vocant) 
originali  depromitur :  de  quo  ita  disputant,  ut  crimen  a  primo  parente  conceptum,  in 
sobolem  derivatum  esse  defendant,  ejusque  contagione,  turn  omnes  humanas  Tires  cor- 
ruptas  et  depravatas,  turn  potissimum  voluntatis  libertatem  destructam  esse  asserant. 
.  .  .  quae  omnia  nos  pernegamus,  utpote  et  sanae  mentis  rationi,  et  divinae  Scripturse 
contraria." — Volkel.  de  Vera  Relig.  lib.  v.  cap.  xviii.  pp.  547,  548.     "  Prior  pars  thesis 
Franzii  falsa  est.  Nam  nullum  individuum  unquam  peccato  originis  fait  infectum.  Quia 
peccatum  illud  mera  est  fabula,  quam  tanquam  fcetum  alienum  fovent  Lutherani,  et 
alii." — Smalc.  Refut.  Thes.  Franz,  disput.  2,  p.  46,  47.    Vid.  Compend.  Socin.  cap.  iii.; 
Smalc.  de  Vera  Divin.  Jes.  Christ,  cap.  vii.    "  Putas  Adatni  peccatum  et  inobedientiam 
ejus  posteritati  imputari.     At  hoc  aeque  tibi  negamus,  quam  Christi  obedientiam  cre- 
dentibus  imputari." — Jonas  Schlichtingius,  disput.  pro  Socino  adversus  Meisnerum,  p. 
251 ;  vide  etiam  p.  100.     "  Quibus  ita  explicatis,  facile  eos  qui  .  .  .  omnem  Adami 
posteritatem,  in  ipso  Adamo  parente  suo  peccasse,  et  mortis  supplicium  vere  fuisse 
commeritum." — IdemfComment.  in  Epist.  ad  Hebraeos  ad  cap.  vii.  p.  296. 

2  "  Ista  sapientia  rerum  divinarum,  et  sanctimonia,  quam  Adamo  ante  lapsum  tri- 
buit  Franzius,  una  cum  aliis,  idea  quaedam  est,  in  cerebro  ipsorum  nata." — Smalc. 
ubi  sup. 

»  Socin.  Ep.  5,  ad  Johan.  Volkel.,  p.  489. 


righteousness,  and  holiness,  is  evident  on  the  ensuing  considera 
tions  : — 

1.  He  who  was  made  "  very  good"  and  "upright,"  in  a  moral  con 
sideration,  had  the  original  righteousness  pleaded  for;  for  moral 
goodness,  integrity,  and  uprightness,  is  equivalent  unto  righteousness. 
So  are  the  words  used  in  the  description  of  Job,  chap.  i.  1;  and  "righte 
ous"  and  "  upright"  are  terras  equivalent,  Ps.  xxxiii.  1.     Now,  that 
man  was  made  thus  good  and  upright  was  manifested  in  the  scriptures 
cited  in  answer  to  the  question  before  proposed,  concerning  the  con 
dition  wherein  our  first  parents  were  created.     And,  indeed,  this 
uprightness  of  man,  this  moral  rectitude,  was  his  formal  aptitude 
and  fitness  for  and  unto  that  obedience  which  God  required  of  him^ 
and  which  was  necessary  for  the  end  whereunto  he  was  created. 

2.  He  who  was  created  perfect  in  his  kind  was  created  with  the 
original  righteousness  pleaded  for.     This  is  evident  from  hence,  be 
cause  righteousness  and  holiness  is  a  perfection  of  a  rational  being 
made  for  the  service  of  God.   This  in  angels  is  called  "  the  truth,"  or 
that  original  holiness  and  rectitude  which  "  the  devil  abode  not  in," 
John  viii.  44.     Now,  as  before,  man  was  created  "  very  good "  and 
"  upright,"  therefore  perfect  as  to  his  state  and  condition;  and  what 
ever  is  in  him  of  imperfection  flows  from  the  corruption  and  depra 
vation  of  nature. 

3.  He  that  was  created  in  the  image  of  God  was  created  in  a  state 
of  righteousness,  holiness,  and  knowledge.     That  Adam  was  created 
in  the  image  of  God  is  plainly  affirmed  in  Scripture,  and  is  not  de 
nied.     That  by  the  "  image  of  God"  is  especially  intended  the  qua 
lities  mentioned,  is  manifest  from  that  farther  description  of  the 
image  of  God  which  we  have  given  us  in  the  scriptures  before  pro 
duced  in  answer  to  our  first  question.     And  what  is  recorded  of 
the  first  man  in  his  primitive  condition  will  not  suffer  us  to  esteem 
him  such  a  baby  in  knowledge  as  the  Socinians  would  make  him. 
His  imposing  of  names  on  all  creatures,  his  knowing  of  his  wife  on 
first  view,  etc.,  exempt  him  from  that  imputation.     Yea,  the  very 
heathens  could  conclude  that  he  was  very  wise  indeed  who  first  gave 
names  to  things.1 

Secondly.  For  the  disproving  of  that  mortality  which  they  ascribe 
to  man  in  inuocency  the  ensuing  arguments  may  suffice: — 

1.  He  that  was  created  in  the  image  of  God,  in  righteousness  and 
holiness,  whilst  he  continued  in  that  state  and  condition,  was  im 
mortal.  That  man  was  so  created  lies  under  the  demonstration  of 
the  foregoing  arguments  and  testimonies.-  The  assertion  thereupon, 
or  the  inference  of  immortality  from  the  image  of  God,  appears  on 
this  double  consideration: — (1.)  In  our  renovation  by  Christ  into  \yu  ret  d^n/Uffreirov  Xayov  wtpi   ravrav  ifvai,   u    ~S.UKfa.ri;,  ftti^u  viva,  ^VIIKUH 
tnrumi  <rjjv  Siftivti*  TO.  trpuru  ovcftara  TIHJ  *fu,yii,eurH, — :PlatO  in  (Jratylo. 


the  image  of  God,  we  are  renewed  to  a  blessed  immortality ;  and  our 
likeness  to  God  consisted  no  less  in  that  than  in  any  other  commu 
nicable  property  of  his  nature.  (2.)  Wherever  is  naturally  perfect 
righteousness,  there  is  naturally  perfect  life;  that  is,  immortality. 
This  is  included  in  the  very  tenor  of  the  promise  of  the  law:  "If  a 
man  keep  my  statutes,  he  shall  live  in  them/'  Lev.  xviii.  5. 

2.  That  which  the  first  man  contracted  and  drew  upon  himself  by 
sin  was  not  natural  to  him  before  he  sinned:  but  that  man  con 
tracted  and  drew  death  upon  himself,  or  made  himself  liable  and 
obnoxious  unto  it  by  sin,  is  proved  by  all  the  texts  of  Scripture  that 
were  produced  above  in  answer  to  our  second  question;  as  Gen. 
ii.  17,  iii.  19;  Bom.  v.  12,  15,  17-19,  vi.  23,  etc. 

3.  That  which  is  beside  and  contrary  to  nature  was  not  natural 
to  the  first  man ;  but  death  is  beside  and  contrary  to  nature,  as  the 
voice  of  nature  abundantly  testifieth :  therefore,  to  man  in  his  pri 
mitive  condition  it  was  not  natural. 

Unto  these  may  sundry  other  arguments  be  added,  from  the  pro 
mise  of  the  law,  the  end  of  man's  obedience,  his  constitution  and 
state,  denying  all  proximate  causes  of  death,  etc. ;  but  these  may 

Thirdly.  That  the  sin  of  Adam  is  not  to  be  confined  to  the  mere 
eating  of  the  fruit  of  the  tree  of  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  but 
had  its  rise  in  infidelity,  and  comprised  universal  apostasy  from 
God,  in  disobedience  to  the  law  of  his  creation  and  dependence  on 
God,  I  have  elsewhere  demonstrated,  and  shall  not  need  here  again 
to  insist  upon  it.1  That  it  began  in  infidelity  is  evident  from  the 
beginning  of  the  temptation  wherewith  he  was  overcome.  It  was 
to  doubt  of  the  truth  or  veracity  of  God  to  which  the  woman  was  at 
first  solicited  by  Satan:  Gen.  iii.  1,  "  Hath  God  said  so?"  pressing  that 
it  should  be  otherwise  than  they  seemed  to  have  cause  to  apprehend 
from  what  God  said;  and  their  acquiescence  in  that  reply  of  Satan, 
without  revolving  to  the  truth  and  faithfulness  of  God,  was  plain 
unbelief.  Now,  as  faith  is  the  root  of  all  righteousness  and  obe 
dience,  so  is  infidelity  of  all  disobedience.  Being  overtaken,  con 
quered,  deceived  into  infidelity,  man  gave  up  himself  to  act  contrary 
to  God  and  his  will,  shook  off  his  sovereignty,  rose  up  against  his 
law,  and  manifested  the  frame  of  his  heart  in  the  pledge  of  his  dis 
obedience,  eating  the  fruit  that  was  sacramentally  forbidden  him. 

Fourthly.  That  all  men  sinned  in  Adam,  and  that  his  sin  is  im 
puted  to  all  his  posterity,  is  by  them  denied,  but  is  easily  evinced  ; 
for, — 

1.  By  whom  sin  entered  into  the  world,  so  that  all  sinned  in  him, 
and  are  made  sinners  thereby,  so  that  also  his  sin  is  called  the  "  sin 
of  the  world,"  in  him  all  mankind  sinned,  and  his  sin  is  imputed  to 
1  Diatrib.  de  Justit.  Divin.  Yin.,  vol.  x. 


them :  but  that  this  was  the  condition  and  state  of  the  first  sin  of 
Adam  the  scriptures  before  mentioned,  in  answer  to  our  seventh 
question,  do  abundantly  manifest;  and  thence  also  is  his  sin  called 
"  the  sin  of  the  world,"  John  i.  29. 

2.  In  whom  all  are  dead,  and  in  whom  they  have  contracted  the 
guilt  of  death  and  condemnation,  in  him  they  have  all  sinned,  and 
have  his  sin  imputed  to  them :  but  in  Adam  all  are  dead,  1  Cor. 
xv.  22,  as  also  Rom.  v.  12,  15,  17-19;  and  death  is  the  wages  of  sin 
only,  Rom.  vi.  23. 

8.  As  by  the  obedience  of  Christ  we  are  made  righteous,  so  by 
the  disobedience  of  Adam  we  are  made  sinners:  so  the  apostle  ex 
pressly,  Rom.  v. :  but  we  are  made  righteous  by  the  obedience  of 
Christ,  by  the  imputation  of  it  to  us,  as  if  we  had  performed  it, 
1  Cor.  i.  30,  Phil.  iii.  9 ;  therefore  we  are  sinners  by  the  imputation 
of  the  sin  of  Adam  to  us,  as  though  we  had  committed  it,  which  the 
apostle  also  affirms.  To  what  hath  been  spoken  from  the  consider 
ation  of  that  state  and  condition  wherein,  by  God's  appointment,  in 
reference  to  all  mankind,  Adam  was  placed,  namely,  of  a  natural 
and  political  or  federal  head  (of  which  the  apostle  treats,  1  Cor.  xv.), 
and  from  the  loss  of  that  image  wherein  he  was  created,  whereunto  by 
Christ  we  are  renewed,  many  more  words  like  these  might  be  added. 

To  what  hath  been  spoken  there  is  no  need  that  much  should  be 
added,  for  the  removal  of  any  thing  insisted  on  to  the  same  purpose 
with  Mr  B/s  intimations  in  the  Racovian  Catechism  ;  but  yet  seeing 
that  that  task  also  is  undertaken,  that  which  may  seem  necessary  for 
the  discharging  of  what  may  thence  be  expected  shall  briefly  be  sub 
mitted  to  the  reader.  To  this  head  they  speak  in  the  first  chapter, 
of  the  way  to  salvation,  the  first  question  whereof  is  of  the  import 
ensuing : — 

Q.  Seeing  thou  saidst  in  the  beginning  that  this  life  which  leadeth  to  immor 
tality  is  divinely  revealed,  I  would  know  ofthee  why  thou  saidst  so? 

A.  Because  as  man  by  nature  hath  nothing  to  do  with  immortality  (or  hath 
no  interest  in  it),  so  by  himself  he  could  by  no  means  know  the  way  which  leadeth 
to  immortality. l 

Both  question  and  answer  being  sophistical  and  ambiguous,  the 
sense  and  intendment  of  them,  as  to  their  application  to  the  matter 
in  hand,  and  by  them  aimed  at,  is  first  to  be  rectified  by  some  few 
distinctions,  and  then  the  whole  will  cost  us  very  little  farther 
trouble : — 

1.  There  is,  or  hath  been,  a  twofold  way  to  a  blessed  immortality: 
— (1.)  The  way  of  perfect  obedience  to  the  law ;  for  he  that  did  it 

1  "  Cum  dixeris  initio,  hanc  viam  quas  ad  immortalitatem  ducat  esse  divinitus  pat«- 
factam,  scire  velim  cur  id  abs  te  dictum  sit  ? — Propterea,  quia  ut  homo  natura  nihil 
habet  commune  cum  immortalitate,  ita  earn  ipse  viam,  quae  nos  ad  immortalitatem 
duceret,  nulla  ratione  per  se  cognoscere  potuit." — Cat.  Rac.  de  via  salut.  cap.  L 


was  to  live  therein.     (2.)  The  way  of  faith  in  the  blood  of  the  Son 
of  God ;  for  he  that  believeth  shall  be  saved. 

2.  Man  by  nature  may  be  considered  two  ways: — (1.)  As  he  was  in 
his  created  condition,  not  tainted,  corrupted,  weakened,  nor  lost  by 
sin;  (2.)  As  fallen,  dead,  polluted,  and  guilty. 

3.  Immortality  is  taken  either,  (1.)  Nakedly  and  purely  in  itself 
for  an  eternal  abiding  of  that  which  is  said  to  be  immortal ;  or,  (2.) 
For  a  blessed  condition  and  state  in  that  abiding  and  continuance. 

4.  That  expression,  "  By  nature,"  referring  to  man  in  his  created 
condition,  not  fallen  by  sin,  may  be  taken  two  ways,  either, — (1.) 
Strictly,  for  the  consequences  of  the  natural  principles  whereof  man 
was  constituted ;  or,  (2.)  More  largely,  it  comprises  God's  constitu 
tion  and  appointment  concerning  man  in  that  estate. 

On  these  considerations  it  will  be  easy  to  take  off  this  head  of 
our  catechists'  discourse,  whereby  also  the  remaining  trunk  will  fall 
to  the  ground. 

I  say,  then,  man  by  nature,  in  his  primitive  condition,  was,  by  the 
appointment  and  constitution  of  God,  immortal  as  to  the  continuance 
of  his  life,  and  knew  the  way  of  perfect  legal  obedience,  tending  to  a 
blessed  immortality,  and  that  by  himself,  or  by  virtue  of  the  law  of 
his  creation,  which  was  concreated  with  him  ;  but  fallen  man,  in  his 
natural  condition,  being  dead  spiritually,  obnoxious  to  death  tem 
poral  and  eternal,  doth  by  no  means  know  himself,  nor  can  know, 
the  way  of  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  leading  to  a  blessed  immortality 
and  glory,  Rom.  ii.  7-10. 

It  is  not,  then,  our  want  of  interest  in  immortality  upon  the  ac 
count  whereof  we  know  not  of  ourselves  the  way  to  immortality  by 
the  blood  of  Christ.  But  there  are  two  other  reasons  that  enforce 
the  truth  of  it : — 

1 .  Because  it  is  a  way  of  mere  grace  and  mercy,  hidden  from  all 
eternity  in  the   treasures  of  God's  infinite  wisdom  and  sovereign 
will,  which  he  neither  prepared  for  man  in  his  created  condition  nor 
had  man  any  need  of ;  nor  is  it  in  the  least  discovered  by  any  of  the 
works  of  God,  nor  by  the  law  written  in  the  heart,  but  is  solely  reveal 
ed  from  the  bosom  of  the  Father  by  the  only-begotten  Son,  neither 
angels  nor  men  being  able  to  discover  the  least  glimpse  of  that 
majesty  without  that  revelation,  John  i.  18;  1  Cor.  ii.  7;  Eph.  iii. 
8-11;  Col.  ii.  2,  3;  1  Tim.  iil  16. 

2.  Because  man  in  his  fatten  condition,  though  there  be  retained 
in  his  heart  some  weak  and  faint  impressions  of  good  and  evil,  re 
ward  and  punishment,  Rom.  ii.  14,  15,  yet  is  spiritually  dead,  blind, 
alienated  from  God,  ignorant,  dark,  stubborn ;  so  far  from  being  able 
of  himself  to  find  out  the  way  of  grace  unto  a  blessed  immortality, 
that  he  is  not  able,  upon  the  revelation  of  it,  savingly,  and  to  the 
great  end  of  its  proposal,  to  receive,  apprehend,  believe,  and  walk  in 


it,  without  a  new  spiritual  creation,  resurrection  from  the  dead,  or 
new  birth,  wrought  by  the  exceeding  greatness  of  the  power  of  God.1 
And  on  these  two  doth  depend  our  disability  to  discover  and  know 
the  way  of  grace  leading  to  life  and  glory.  And  by  this  brief  re 
moval  of  the  covering  is  the  weakness  and  nakedness  of  their  whole 
ensuing  discourse  so  discovered  as  that  I  shall  speedily  take  it  with 
its  offence  out  of  the  way.  They  proceed : — 

Q.  But  why  hath  man  nothing  to  do  with  (or  no  interest  in)  immortality  f 
A.  Therefore,  because  from  the  beginning  he  was  formed  of  the  ground,  and  so 
was  created  mortal ;  and  then  because  he  transgressed  the  command  given  him  of 
God,  and  so  by  the  decree  of  God,  expressed  in  his  command,  was  necessarily 
subject  to  eternal  death.* 

1.  It  is  true,  man  was  created  of  the  dust  of  the  earth  as  to  his 
bodily  substance  ;  yet  it  is  as  true  that  moreover  God  breathed  into 
him  the  breath  of  life,  whereby  he  became  "  a  living  soul,"  and  in 
that  immediate  constitution  and  framing  from  the  hand  of  God  was 
free  from  all  nextly  disposing  causes  unto  dissolution.     But  his  im 
mortality  we  place  on  another  account,  as  hath  been  declared,  which 
is  no  way  prejudiced  by  his  being  made  of  the  ground. 

2.  The  second  reason  belongs  unto  man  only  as  having  sinned, 
and  being  fallen  out  of  that  condition  and  covenant  wherein  he  was 
created.     So  that  I  shall  need  only  to  let  the  reader  know  that  the 
eternal  death,  in  the  judgment  of  our  catechists,  whereunto  man  was 
subjected  by  sin,  was  only  an  eternal  dissolution  or  annihilation  (or 
rather  an  abode  under  dissolution,  dissolution  itself  being  not  penal), 
and  not  any  abiding  punishment,  as  will  afterward  be  farther  mani 
fest.     They  go  on  : — 

Q.  But  how  doth  this  agree  with  those  places  of  Scripture  wherein  it  is  written 
that  man  was  created  in  the  image  of  God,  and  created  unto  immortality,  and 
that  death  entered  into  the  world  by  sin,  Gen.  i.  26 ;  Wisd.  ii.  23 ;  Rom.  v.  12  ? 

A.  As  to  the  testimony  which  declareth  that  man  was  created  in  the  image  of 
God,  it  is  to  be  known  that  the  image  of  God  doth  not  signify  immortality 
'  (which  is  evident  from  hence,  because  at  that  time  when  man  was  subject  to  eternal 
death  the  Scripture  acknowledgeth  in  him  that  image,  Gen.  ix.  6,  James  iii.  9), 
but  it  denoteth  the  power  and  dominion  over  all  things  made  of  God  on  the  earth, 
as  the  same  place  where  this  image  is  treated  of  clearly  showeth,  Gen.  i.  26.a 

1  Eph.  ii.  1 ;  John  i.  5 ;  Rom.  iii.  17,  18,  viii.  7,  8 ;  1  Cor.  ii.  14  ;  Tit.  iii.  3  ;  Eph. 
ii.  5,  iv.  18 ;  Col.  i.  13,  ii.  13,  etc, 

2  "  Cur  vero  nihil  commune  babet  homo  cum  immortalitate  ? — Idcirco,  quod  ab  initio 
de  humo  formatus,  proptereaque  mortalis  creatus  fuerit ;  deinde  vero,  quod  mandatum 
Dei,  ipsi  propositum,  transgressus  sit ;  ideoque  decreto  Dei  ipsius  in  mandate  expresso, 
seternse  morti  necessario  subjectus  fuerit." 

3  "  Qui  vero  id  conveniet  iis  Scriptures  locis  in  quibus  scriptum  extat,  hominem  ad 
imaginem  Dei  creatum  esse,  et  creatum  ad  immortalitatem,  et  quod  mors  per  peccatum 
in  mundum  introierit,  Gen.  i.  26,  27;  Sap.  ii.  23  ;  Rom.  v.  12  ? — Quod  ad  testimonium 
attinet,  quod  hominem  creatum  ad  imaginem  Dei  pronunciat,  sciendum  est,  imaginem 
Dei  non  significare  immortalitatem  (quod  hinc  patet,  quod  Scriptura,  eo  tempore  quo 
homo  aeternse  mqrti  subjectus  erat,  agnoscat  in  homine  istam  imaginem,  Gen.  ix.  6,  Jacob, 
iii.  9),  sed  potestatem  hominis,  et  dominium  in  omnes  res  a  Deo  conditas,  supra  terram, 
designare  ;  ut  idem  locus,  in  quo  de  hac  eadem  imagine  agitur,  Gen.  i.  26,  aperte  indieat." 

VOL.  XII.  11 


The  argument  for  that  state  and  condition  wherein  we  affirm  man 
to  have  been  created  from  the  consideration  of  the  image  of  God 
wherein  he  was  made,  and  whereunto  in  part  we  are  renewed,  was 
formerly  insisted  on.  Let  the  reader  look  back  unto  it,  and  he  will 
quickly  discern  how  little  is  here  offered  to  enervate  it  in  the  least ; 

for, — 

1.  They  cannot  prove  that  man,  in  the  condition  and  state  of  sin, 
doth  retain  any  thing  of  the  image  of  God.      The  places  mentioned, 
as  Gen.  ix.  6,  and  James  iii.  9,  testify  only  that  he  was  made  in  the 
image  of  God  at  first,  but  that  he  doth  still  retain  the  image  they 
intimate  not ;  nor  is  the  inference  used  in  the  places  taken  from 
what  man  is,  but  what  he  was  created. 

2.  That  the  image  of  God  did  not  consist  in  any  one  excellency 
hath  been  above  declared;  so  that  the  argument  to  prove  that  it  did 
not  consist  in  immortality,  because  it  did  consist  in  the  dominion 
over  the  creatures,  is  no  better  than  that  would  be  which  should  con 
clude  that  the  sun  did  not  give  light  because  it  gives  heat.     So 
that, — 

3.  Though  the  image  of  God,  as  to  the  main  of  it,  in  reference  to 
the  end  of  everlasting  communion  with  God  whereunto  we  were 
created,  was  utterly  lost  by  sin  (or  else  we  could  not  be  renewed 
unto  it  again  by  Jesus  Christ),  yet  as  to  some  footsteps  of  it,  in  refer 
ence  to  our  fellow-creatures,  so  much  might  be  and  was  retained  as 
to  be  a  reason  one  towards  another  for  our  preservation  from  wrong 
and  violence. 

4.  That  place  of  Gen.  L  26,  "  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image,  and 
let  him  have  dominion  over  the  fish  of  the  sea,"  etc.,  is  so  far  from 
proving  that  the  image  of  God  wherein  man  was  created  did  consist 
only  in  the  dominion  mentioned,  that  it  doth  not  prove  that  domi 
nion  to  have  been  any  part  of  or  to  belong  unto  that  image.     It  is 
rather  a  grant  made  to  them  who  were  made  in  the  image  of  God 
khan  a  description  of  that  image  wherein  they  were  made. 

It  is  evident,  then,  notwithstanding  any  thing  here  excepted  to 
the  contrary,  that  the  immortality  pleaded  for  belonged  to  the  image 
of  God,  and  from  man's  being  created  therein  is  rightly  inferred ;  as 
above  was  made  more  evident. 

Upon  the  testimony  of  the  Book  of  Wisdom,  it  being  confessedly 
apocryphal,  I  shall  not  insist.  Neither  do  I  think  that  in  the  origi 
nal  any  new  argument  to  that  before  mentioned  of  the  image  of 
God  is  added ;  but  that  is  evidently  pressed,  and  the  nature  of  the 
image  of  God  somewhat  explained.  The  words  are,  "Or/  6  Oto;  IKTIGI 
rbv  avdpuvov  lif  atpdapffiq,  xai  tinova  r)jg  /5/ag  /'S/oYjjroj  tiroiqetv  avr6v' 
&86vu  ds  5/a£oXou  Sayarog  «/tf$jX0£v  tig  rbv  xoffftov'  qreipdfyvet  81  O.VTOV  01  rqf 
txtivov  /Atpidog  Svres.  The  opposition  that  is  put  between  the  creation 
of  man  in  integrity  and  the  image  of  God  in  one  verse,  and  the  en- 


trance  of  sin  by  the  envy  of  the  devil  in  the  next,  plainly  evinces 
that  the  mind  of  the  author  of  that  book  was,  that  man,  by  reason 
of  his  being  created  in  the  image  of  God,  was  immortal  in  his  primi 
tive  condition.  That  which  follows  is  of  another  nature,  concerning 
which  they  thus  inquire  and  answer: — 

Q.   What,  moreover,  wilt  thou  answer  to  the  third  testimony  f 

A.  The  apostle  in  that  place  treateth  not  of  immortality  [mortality],  but  of 

death  itself.     But  mortality  differeth  much  from  death,  for  a  man  may  be  mortal 

and  yet  never  die.1 

But, — 1.  The  apostle  eminently  treats  of  man's  becoming  obnoxi 
ous  to  death,  which  until  he  was,  he  was  immortal;  for  he  says  that 
death  entered  the  world  by  sin,  and  passed  on  all  men,  not  actually, 
but  in  the  guilt  of  it  and  obnoxiousness  to  it.  By  what  means  death 
entered  into  the  world,  or  had  a  right  so  to  do,  by  that  means  man 
lost  the  immortality  which  before  he  had. 

2.  It  is  true,  a  man  may  be  mortal  as  to  state  and  condition,  and 
yet  by  almighty  power  be  preserved  and  delivered  from  actual  dying, 
as  it  was  with  Enoch  and  Elijah;  but  in  an  ordinary  course  he  that 
is  mortal  must  die,  and  is  directly  obnoxious  to  death.  But  that 
which  we  plead  for  from  those  words  of  the  apostle  is,  that  man,  by 
God's  constitution  and  appointment,  was  so  immortal  as  not  to  be 
liable  or  obnoxious  to  death  until  he  sinned.  But  they  will  prove 
their  assertion  in  their  progress. 

Q.  What,  therefore,  is  the  sense  of  these  words,  "  that  death  entered  into  the 
world  by  sin?" 

A,  This,  that  Adam  for  sin,  by  the  decree  and  sentence  of  God,  was  subject  to 
eternal  death ;  and  therefore  all  men,  because  (or  inasmuch  as)  they  are  born  of 
him,  are  subject  to  the  same  eternal  death.  And  that  this  is  so,  the  comparison 
of  Christ  with  Adam,  which  the  apostle  instituteth  from  verse  12  to  the  end  of  the 
chapter,  doth  declare.1 

1 .  Be  it  so  that  this  is  the  meaning  of  those  words ;  yet  hence  it 
inevitably  follows  that  man  was  no  way  liable  or  obnoxious  to  death 
but  upon  the  account  of  the  commination  of  God  annexed  to  the 
law  he  gave  him.   And  this  is  the  whole  of  what  we  affirm, — namely, 
that  by  God's  appointment  man  was  immortal,  and  the  tenure  of  his 
immortality  was  his  obedience,  and  thereupon  his  right  thereunto  he 
lost  by  his  transgression. 

2.  This  is  farther  evident  from  the  comparison  between  Christ  and 
Adam,  instituted  by  the  apostle;  for  as  we  are  all  dead  without 

1  "  Quid  porro  ad  tertium  respondeois  ? — Apostolus  co  in  loco  non  agit  de  immor- 
talitate  [mortalitate],  verum  de  morte  ipsa.    Mortalitas  vero  a  morte  multum  dissidet; 
siquidem  potest  esse  quis  mortalis,  nee  tamen  unquam  mori." 

2  "  Quse  igitur  est  horum  verborum  sententia,  quod  mors  per  peccalum  introieril  in 
mundum  ? — Hgec,  quod  Adamus  ob  peccatum,  decreto  et  sententia  Dei,  seternae  morti 
subjectus  est ;  proinde,  omnes  homines,  eo  quod  ex  eo  nati  sunt,  eidem  seternae  morti 
subjaceant.    Bern  ita  esse,  collatio  Christi  cum  Adamo,  quam  apostolus  eodcm  capite,  a 
Ter.  12  ad  finem,  instituit,  indicio  est." 


Christ  and  his  righteousness,  -and  have  not  the  least  right  to  life  or  a 
blessed  immortality,  so  antecedently  to  the  consideration  of  Adam 
and  his  disobedience,  we  were  not  in  the  least  obnoxious  unto  death, 
or  any  way  liable  to  it  in  our  primitive  condition. 

And  this  is  all  that  our  catechists  have  to  plead  for  themselves,  or 
to  except  against  our  arguments  and  testimonies  to  the  cause  in 
hand ;  which  how  weak  it  is  in  itself,  and  how  short  it  comes  of 
reaching  to  the  strength  we  insist  on,  a  little  comparison  of  it  with 
what  went  before  will  satisfy  the  pious  reader. 

What  remains  of  that  chapter,  consisting  in  the  depravation  of  two 
or  three  texts  of  Scripture  to  another  purpose  than  that  in  hand,  I 
shall  not  divert  to  the  consideration  of,  seeing  it  will  more  orderly 
fall  under  debate  in  another  place. 

What  our  catechists  add  elsewhere  about  original  sin,  or  their  at 
tempt  to  disprove  it,  being  considered,  shall  give  a  close  to  this  dis 

Their  lOfeh  chapter  is,  "De  libero  arbitrio;"  where,  after,  in  answer 
to  the  first  question  proposed,  they  have  asserted  that  it  is  in  our 
power  to  yield  obedience  unto  God,  as  having  free  will  in  our  crea 
tion  so  to  do,  and  having  by  no  way  or  means  lost  that  liberty  or 
power,  their  second  question  is, — 

Q.  Is  not  this  free  will  corrupted  by  original  sin  ? 

A.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  Anginal  sin,  wherefore  that  cannot  vitiate  free 
•will,  nor  can  that  original  sin  be  proved  out  of  the  Scripture ;  and  the  fall  of 
Adam,  being  but  one  act,  could  not  have  that  force  as  to  corrupt  his  own  nature, 
much  less  that  of  his  posterity.  And  that  it  was  inflicted  on  him  as  a  punishment 
neither  doth  the  Scripture  teach,  and  it  is  incredible  that  God,  who  is  the  fountain 
of  all  goodness,  would  so  do.1 

1.  This  is  yet  plain  dealing;  and  it  is  well  that  men  who  know 
neither  God  nor  themselves  have  yet  so  much  honesty  left  as  to' 
speak  downright  what  they  intend.     Quickly  despatched ! — "  There 
is  no  such  thing  as  original  sin."    To  us,  the  denying  of  it  is  one  argu 
ment  to  prove  it.     Were  not  men  blind  and  dead  in  sin,  they  could 
not  but  be  sensible  of  it;  but  men  swimming  with  the  water  feel 
not  the  strength  of  the  stream. 

2.  But  doth  the  Scripture  teach  no  such  thing?   Doth  it  nowhere 
teach  that  we,  who  were  "  created  upright,  in  the  image  of  God,  are 
now  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins,  by  nature  children  of  wrath,  having 
the  wrath  of  God  upon  us,  being  blind  in  our  understandings,  and 
alienated  from  the  life  of  God,  not  able  to  receive  the  things  that 

?  "  Nonne  peccato  originis  hoc  liberum  arbitrium  vitiatum  est  ? — Peccatum  originis 
nullum  prorsus  est :  quare  nee  liberum  arbitrium  vitiare  potuit,  nee  enim  e  Scriptura 
id  peccatum  originis  doceri  potest ;  et  lapsus  Adse  cum  unus  actus  fuerit,  vim  earn  quse 
depravare  ipsam  naturam  Adami,  multo  minus  vcro  posterorum  ipsius  posset,  habere 
non  potuit.  Jpsi  vero  in  poenam  irrogatum  fuisse,  nee  Scriptura  docet,  uti  superius 
exposuimus ;  et  Deum  ilium,  qui  omnis  aequitatis  fons  est,  incredibile  prorsus  est,  id 
facere  voluisse." — Cap.  x.  de  lib-  arbit.  q.  2. 


•are  of  God,  which  are  spiritually  discerned,  our  carnal  minds  being 
enmity  to  God,  not  subject  to  his  law,  nor  can  be;  that  our  hearts 
are  stony,  our  affections  sensual ;  that  we  are  wholly  come  short  of 
the  glory  of  God ;  that  every  figment  of  our  heart  is  evil,  so  that 
we  can  neither  think,  nor  speak,  nor  do  that  which  is  spiritually 
good  or  acceptable  to  God;  that  being  born  of  the  flesh,  we  are  flesh, 
and  unless  we  are  born  again,  can  by  no  means  enter  into  the  king 
dom  of  heaven;  that  all  this  is  come  upon  us  by  the  sin  of  one 
man,  whence  also  judgment  passed  on  all  men  to  condemnation?" 
Can  nothing  of  all  this  be  proved  from  the  Scripture?  These  gentle 
men  know  that  we  contend  not  about  words  or  expressions.  Let 
them  grant  this  hereditary  corruption  of  our  nature,  alienation  from 
God,  impotency  to  good,  deadness  and  obstinacy  in  sin,  want  of 
the  Spirit,  image,  and  grace  of  God,  with  obnoxiousness  thereon 
to  eternal  condemnation,  and  give  us  a  fitter  expression  to  declare 
this  state  and  condition  by  in  respect  of  every  one's  personal  interest 
therein,  and  we  will,  so  it  may  please  them,  call  it  "  original  sin"  no 

3.  It  is  not  impossible  that  one  act  should  be  so  high  and  intense 
in  its  kind  as  to  induce  a  habit  into  the  subject,  and  so  Adam's  na 
ture  be  vitiated  by  it ;  and  he  begot  a  son  in  his  own  likeness.    The 
devils  upon  one  sin  became  obstinate  in  all  the  wickedness  that  their 
nature  is  capable  of.     (2.)  This  one  act  was  a  breach  of  covenant  with 
God,  upon  the  tenor  and  observation  whereof  depended  the  enjoy 
ment  of  all  that  strength  and  rectitude  with  God  wherewith,  by 
the  law  of  his  creation,  man  was  endued.     (3.)  All  man's  covenant 
good,  for  that  eternal  end  to  which  he  was  created,  depended  upon 
his  conformity  to  God,  his  subjection  to  him,  and  dependence  on  him ; 
all  which,  by  that  one  sin,  he  wilfully  cast  away  for  himself  and  pos 
terity  (whose  common,  natural,  and  federal  head  he  was),  and  right 
eously  fell  into  that  condition  which  we  have  described.     (4.)  The 
apostle  is  much  of  a  different  mind  from  our  catechists,  Rom.  v. 
15,  16,  etc.,  as  hath  been  declared. 

4.  What  is  credible  concerning  God  and  his  goodness  with  these 
gentlemen  I  know  not.     To  me,  that  is  not  only  in  itself  credibk 
which  he  hath  revealed  concerning  himself,  but  of  necessity  to  be 
believed.     That  he  gave  man  a  law,  threatening  him,  and  all  his  pos 
terity  in  him  and  with  him,  with  eternal  death  upon  the  breach  of 
it;  that  upon  that  sin  he  cast  all  mankind  judicially  out  of  covenant, 
imputing  that  sin  unto  them  all  unto  the  guilt  of  condemnation, 
seeing  it  is  "  his  judgment  that  they  who  commit  sin  are  worthy  of 
death;"  and  that  "he  is  of  purer  eyes  than  to  behold  evil," — is  to 
us  credible,  yea,  as  was  said,  of  necessity  to  be  believed.     But  they 
will  answer  the  proofs  that  are  produced  from  Scripture  in  the  as 
serting  of  this  original  sin. 


Q.  But  that  there  is  original  sin  these  testimonies  seem  to  prove:  Gen.  vi.  5, 
"  Every  cogitation  of  the  heart  of  man  is  only  evil  every  day  ;"  and  Gen.  viii.  21, 
"  The  cogitation  of  man's  heart  is  evil  from  his  youth  f" 

A.  These  testimonies  deal  concerning  voluntary  sin ;  from  them,  therefore,  ori 
ginal  sin  cannot  be  proved.  As  for  the  first,  Moses  showeth  it  to  be  such  a  sin 
for  whose  sake  God  repented  him  that*  he  had  made  man,  and  decreed  to  destroy 
him  with  a  flood ;  which  certainly  can  by  no  means  be  affirmed  concerning  a  sin 
which  should  be  in  man  by  nature,  such  as  they  think  original  sin  to  be.  In 
the  other,  he  showeth  that  the  sin  of  man  shall  not  have  that  efficacy  that  God 
should  punish  the  world  for  it  with  a  flood;  which  by  no  means  agreeth  to  origi 
nal  sin.1 

That  this  attempt  of  our  catechists  is  most  vain  and  frivolous  will 
quickly  appear;  for, — 1.  Suppose  original  sin  be  not  asserted  in  those 
places,  doth  it  follow  there  is  no  original  sin?  Do  they  not  know 
that  we  affirm  it  to  be  revealed  in  the  way  of  salvation,  and  proved 
by  a  hundred  places  besides?  And  do  they  think  to  overthrow  it  by 
their  exception  against  two  or  three  of  them,  when  if  it  be  taught  in 
any  one  of  them  it  suffices?  2.  The  words,  as  by  them  rendered, 
lose  much  of  the  efficacy  for  the  confirmation  of  what  they  oppose 
which  in  the  original  they  have.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  not,  "  Every 
thought  of  man's  heart,"  but,  "  Every  imagination  or  figment  of  the 
thoughts  of  his  heart."  The  "  motus  primo  primi,"  the  very  natural 
frame  and  temper  of  the  heart  of  man,  as  to  its  first  motions  towards 
good  or  evil,  are  doubtless  expressed  in  these  words.  So  also  is  it  in 
the  latter  place. 

We  say,  then,  that  original  sin  is  taught  and  proved  in  these 
places;  not  singly  or  exclusively  to  actual  sins,  not  a  parte  ante,  or 
from  the  causes  of  it,  but  from  its  effects.  That  such  a  frame  of 
heart  is  so  universally  by  nature  in  all  mankind,  and  in  every  indi 
vidual  of  them,  as  that  it  is  ever,  always,  or  continually,  casting,  coin 
ing,  and  devising  evil,  and  that  only,  without  the  intermixture  of  any 
thing  of  another  kind  that  is  truly  and  spiritually  good,  is  taught  in 
these  places ;  and  this  is  original  sin.  Nor  is  this  disproved  by  our 
catechists;  for, — 

1.  "  Because  the  sin  spoken  of  is  voluntary,  therefore  it  is  not  ori 
ginal,"  will  not  be  granted.  (1.)  Original  sin,  as  it  is  taken  peccatum 
originans,  was  voluntary  in  Adam ;  and  as  it  is  originatum  in  us  is  in 
our  wills  habitually,  and  not  against  them,  in  any  actings  of  it  or 
them.  (2.)  The  effects  of  it,  in  the  coining  of  sin  and  in  the  thoughts  of 
men's  hearts,  are  all  voluntary;  which  are  here  mentioned  to  demon 
strate  and  manifest  that  root  from  whence  they  spring,  that  prevail- 

*  "  Veruntamen  esse  peccatum  originis  ilia  testimonia  docere  videntur,  Gen.  vi.  5, 
etc.,  viii.  21. — Haec  testimonia  agunt  de  peccato  voluntario  ;  ex  iis-itaque  effici  nequit 
peccatum  originis.  Quod  autem  ad  primum  attinet,  Moses  id  peccatum  ejusmodi  fuisse 
docet  cujus  causa  poenituisse  Deum  quod  hominem  creasset,  et  eum  diluvio  punire  de- 
crevisset ;  quod  certe  de  peccato  quod  homini  natura  inesset,  quale  peccatum  originis 
censeat,  affirmari  nullo  pacto  potest.  In  altero  vero  testimonio  docet,  peccatum  homi- 
nis  earn  vim  habiturum  non  esse,  ut  Deus  mundum  diluvio  propter  illud  puniret ;  quod 
etiam  peccato  originis  nullo  modo  convenit." 


ing  principle  and  predominant  habit  from  whence  they  so  uniformly 

2.  Why  it  doth  not  agree  to  original  sin  that  the  account  [is]  men 
tioned,  verse  6,  of  God's  repenting  that  he  had  made  man,  and  his 
resolution  to  destroy  him,  these  gentlemen  offer  not  one  word  of  rea 
son  to  manifest.     We  say, — (1.)  That  it  can  agree  to  no  other  but 
this  original  sin,  with  its  infallible  effects,  wherein  all  mankind  were 
equally  concerned,  and  so  became  equally  liable  to  the  last  judgment 
of  God ;  though  some,  from  the  same  principle,  had  acted  much  more 
boldly  against  his  holy  Majesty  than  others.     (2.)  Its  being  in  men 
by  nature  doth  not  at  all  lessen  its  guilt.   It  is  not  in  their  nature  as 
created,  nor  in  them  so  by  nature,  but  is  by  the  fall  of  Adam  come 
upon  the  nature  of  all  men,  dwelling  in  the  person  of  every  one; 
which  lesseneth  not  its  guilt,  but  manifests  its  advantage  for  provo 

3.  Why  the  latter  testimony  is  not  applicable  to  original  sin  they 
inform  us  not.     The  words  joined  with  it  are  an  expression  of  that 
patience  and  forbearance  which  God  resolved  and  promised  to  exer 
cise  towards  the  world,  with  a  non  obstante  for  sin.     Now,  what  sin 
should  this  be  but  that  which  is  "  the  sin  of  the  world"?   That  actual 
sins  are  excluded  we  say  not;  but  that  original  sin  is  expressed  and 
aggravated  by  the  effects  of  it  our  catechists  cannot  disprove.    There 
are  many  considerations  of  these  texts,  from  whence  the  argument 
from  them  for  the  proof  of  that  corruption  of  nature  which  we  call 
original  sin  might  be  much  improved ;  but  that  is  not  my  present 
business,  our  catechists  administering  no  occasion  to  such  a  discourse. 
But  they  take  some  other  texts  into  consideration: — 

Q.  What  thinkest  thou  of  that  which  David  speaks,  Ps.  li.  7,  "  Behold,  I  was 
shapen  in  iniquity,  and  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me  f  " 

A.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  David  doth  not  here  speak  of  any  men  but  himself 
alone,  nor  that  simply,  but  with  respect  to  his  fall,  and  uses  that  form  of  speaking 
which  you  have  in  him  again,  Ps.  Iviii.  3.  Wherefore  original  sin  cannot  be 
evinced  by  this  testimony.1 

But, — ] .  Though  David  speaks  of  himself,  yet  he  speaks  of  himself 
in  respect  of  that  which  was  common  to  himself  with  all  mankind, 
being  a  child  of  wrath  as  well  as  others ;  nor  can  these  gentlemen 
intimate  any  thing  of  sin  and  iniquity,  in  the  conception  and  birth 
of  David,  that  was  not  common  to  all  others  with  him.  Any  man's 
confession  for  himself  of  a  particular  guilt  in  a  common  sin  doth  not 
free  others  from  it;  yea;  it  proves  all  others  to  be  partakers  in  it 
who  share  in  that  condition  wherein  he  contracted  the  guilt. 

1  "  Quid  vero  ea  de  re  sentis  quod  David  ait,  Ps.  li.  7  ? — Animadvertendum  est,  hie 
Davidem  non  agere  de  quibusvis  hominibus,  sed  de  se  tantum,  nee  simpliciter,  sed 
habita  ratione  lapsus  sui ;  et  eo  loquendi  modo  usum  esse,  cujus  exemplum  apud  eun- 
dem  Davidem  habes  Ps.  Iviii.  3.  Quamobrem  nee  eo  testimonia  effici  prorsus  potest 
peccatum  originis." 


2.  Though  David  mentions  this  by  occasion  of  his  fall,  as  Tiaving 
his  conscience  made  tender  and  awakened  to  search  into  the  root  of 
his  sin  and  transgression  thereby,  yet  it  was  no  part  of  his  fall,  nor 
was  he  ever  the  more  or  less  conceived  in  sin  and  brought  forth  in 
iniquity  for  that  fall ;  which  were  ridiculous  to  imagine.     He  here 
acknowledges  it  upon  the  occasion  of  his  fall,  which  was  a  fruit  of 
the  sin  wherewith  he  was  born,  James  i.  14,  15,  but  was  equally 
guilty  of  it  before  his  fall  and  after. 

3.  The  expression  here  used,  and  that  of  Ps.  Iviii.  3,  "  The  wicked 
are  estranged  from  the  womb,  they  go  astray  as  soon  as  they  be  born, 
speaking  lies,"  exceedingly  differ.     Here,  David  expresses  what  was 
his  infection  in  the  womb ;  there,  what  is  wicked  men's  constant  prac 
tice  from  the  womb.     In  himself,  he  mentions  the  root  of  all  actual 
sin ;  in  them,  the  constant  fruit  that  springs  from  that  root  in  unre- 
generate  men.     So  that,  by  the  favour  of  these  catechists,  I  yet  say 
that  David  doth  here  acknowledge  a  sin  of  nature,  a  sin  wherewith 
he  was  defiled  from  his  conception,  and  polluted  when  he  was 
warmed,  and  so  fomented  in  his  mother's  womb ;  and  therefore  this 
place  doth  prove  original  sin. 

One  place  more  they  call  to  an  account,  in  these  words: — 

Q.  But  Paul  saith  that  "  in  Adam  all  sinned"  Rom.  v.  12. 

A.  It  is  not  in  that  place,  "  In  Adam  all  sinned ;"  but  in  the  Greek  the  words 
are  Ip*  *>,  which  interpreters  do  frequently  render  in  Latin  in  quo,  "  in  whom," 
which  yet  may  be  rendered  by  the  particles  quoniam  or  quatenus,  "  because,"  or 
"inasmuch,"  as  in  like  places,  Rom.  viii.  3.  Phil.  iii.  12,  Heb.  ii.  18,  2  Cor.  v.  4. 
It  appeareth,  therefore,  that  neither  can  original  sin  be  built  up  out  of  this  place.1 

1.  Stop  these  men  from  this  shifting  hole,  and  you  may  with  much 
ease  entangle  and  catch  them  twenty  times  a  day:  "  This  word  may 
be  rendered  otherwise,  for  it  is  so  in  another  place," — a  course  of  pro 
cedure  that  leaves  nothing  certain  in  the  book  of  God.  2.  In  two 
of  the  places  cited,  the  words  are  not  !f>*  $,  but  Iv  w,  Rom.  viii.  3, 
Heb.  ii.  18.  3.  The  places  are  none  of  them  parallel  to  this;  for 
here,  the  apostle  speaks  of  persons  or  a  person  in  an  immediate  pre 
cedency;  in  them,  of  things.  4.  But  render  tfi  c5  by  quoniam,  "be 
cause,"  or  "  for  that,"  as  our  English  translation  doth,  the  argument 
is  no  less  evident  for  original  sin  than  if  they  were  rendered  by  "  in 
whom."  In  the  beginning  of  the  verse  the  apostle  tells  us  that 
death  entered  the  world  by  the  sin  of  one  man, — that  one  man  of 
whom  he  is  speaking,  namely,  Adam, — and  passed  upon  all  men :  of 
which  dispensation,  that  death  passed  on  all  men,  he  gives  you  the 
reason  in  these  words,  "  For  that  all  have  sinned;"  that  is,  in  that 

1  "  At  Paulus  ait  Bom.  v.  12,  In  Adamo,  etc — Non  habetur  eo  loco,  In  Adamo  ornnet 
pecc&sse  ;  verum  in  Grseco  verba  sunt  itp'  »,  quse  passim  interpretes  reddunt  Latine,  in 
quo,  quse  tamen  reddi  possunt  per  particulas  quoniam  aut  quatmus,  ut  e  locis  simili- 
bns.  Rom.  viii.  3,  Phil.  iii.  12,  Heb.  ii.  18.  2  Cor.  v.  4,  videro  est.  Apparet  igitur 
neque  ex  hoc  loco  extrui  posse  peocatum  originis." 


sin  of  that  one  man  whereby  death  entered  on  the  world  and  passed 
on  them  all.  I  wonder  how  our  catechists  could  once  imagine  that 
this  exception  against  the  translation  of  those  words  should  enervate 
the  argument  from  the  text  for  the  proof  of  all  men's  guilt  of  the 
first  sin,  seeing  the  conviction  of  it  is  no  less  evident  from  the  words 
if  rendered  according  to  their  desire. 

And  this  is  the  sum  of  what  they  have  to  offer  for  the  acquitment 
of  themselves  from  the  guilt  and  stain  of  original  sin,  and  for  answer 
to  the  three  testimonies  on  its  behalf  which  themselves  chose  to  call 
forth;  upon  the  strength  whereof  they  so  confidently  reject  it  at  the 
entrance  of  their  discourse,  arid  in  the  following  question  triumph 
upon  it,  as  a  thing  utterly  discarded  from  the  thoughts  of  their  cate 
chumens.  What  reason  or  ground  they  have  for  their  confidence 
the  reader  will  judge.  In  the  meantime,  it  is  sufficiently  known 
that  they  have  touched  very  little  of  the  strength  of  our  cause,  nor 
once  mentioned  the  testimonies  and  arguments  on  whose  evidence 
and  strength  in  this  business  we  rely.  And  for  themselves  who 
write  and  teach  these  things,  I  should  much  admire  their  happiness, 
did  I  not  so  much  as  I  do  pity  them  in  their  pride  and  distemper, 
keeping  them  from  an  acquaintance  with  their  own  miserable  con 


Of  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  on  what  account  he  is  the  Son  of  God. 


Ques.  How  many  Lords  of  Christians  are  there,  by  way  of  distinction  from 
that  one  God  ? 

Ans.  Eph.  iv.  5. 

Q.   Who  is  that  one  Lord  ? 

A.  1  Cor.  viii.  6. 

Q.  How  was  Jesus  Christ  bornf  , 

A.  Matt.  i.  18;  Luke  i.  30-35. 

Q.  How  came  Jesus  Christ  to  be  Lord,  according  to  the  opinion  of  the  apostle 

A.  Rom.  xiv.  9. 

Q.  What  saith  the  apostle  Peter  also  concerning  the  time  and  manner  of  his 
being  made  Lord  ? 

A.  Acts  ii.  32,  33,  36. 

Q.  Did  not  Jesus  Christ  approve  himself  to  be  God  by  his  miracles;  and  did 
he  not  those  miracles  by  a  divine  nature  of  his  own,  and  because  he  was  God  him 
self?  What  is  the  determination  of  the  apostle  Peter  in  this  behalf? 

A.  Acts  ii.  22,  x.  38. 

Q.  Could  not  Christ  do  all  things  of  himself ;  and  was  it  not  an  eternal  Son 
of  God  that  took  flesh  upon  him,  and  to  whom  the  human  nature  of  Christ  was 
personally  united,  that  wrought  all  his  works  ?  Answer  me  to  these  things  in  the 
words  of  the  Son  himself. 

A.  John  v.  19,  20,  30,  xiv.  10. 


Q.  What  reason  doth  the  Son  render  why  the  Father  did  not  forsake  him 
and  cast  him  out  of  favour?  Was  it  because  he  was  of  the  same  essence  with 
him,  so  that  it  was  impossible  for  the  Father  to  forsake  him  or  cease  to  love 

A.  John  viii.  28,  29,  xv.  9,  10. 

Q.  Doth  the  Scripture  account  Christ  to  be  the  Son  of  God  because  he  was 
eternally  begotten  out  of  the  divine  essence,  or  for  other  reasons  agreeing  to  him 
only  as  a  man  ?  Rehearse  the  passages  to  this  purpose. 

A.  Luke  i.  30,  32,  34,  35;  Johnx.  36;  Acts  xiii.  32,  33;  Eev.  i.  5;  Col.  i.  18; 
Heb.  i.  4,  5,  v.  5;  Horn.  viii.  29. 

Q.  What  saith  the  Son  himself  concerning  the  prerogative  of  God  the  Father 
above  him  f 

A.  John  xiv.  28;  Mark  xiii.  32;  Matt.  xxiv.  36. 

Q.  What  saith  the  apostle  Paul  f 

A.  1  Cor.  xv.  24,  28,  xi.  3,  iii.  22,  23 

Q.  Howbeit,  is  not  Christ  dignified,  as  with  the  title  of  Lord,  so  also  with  that 
of  God,  in  the  Scripture  ? 

A.  John  xx.  28. 

Q.  Was  he  so  the  God  of  Thomas  as  that  he  himself  in  the  meantime  did  not 
acknowledge  another  to  be  his  God  ? 

A.  John  xx.  17;  Rev.  iii.  12. 

Q.  Have  you  any  passage  of  the  Scripture  where  Christ,  at  the  same  time  that 
he  hath  the  appellation  of  God  given  to  him,  is  said  to  have  a  God? 

A.  Heb.  i.  8,  9. 


The  aim  and  design  of  our  catechist  in  this  chapter  being  to  de 
spoil  our  blessed  Lord  Jesus  Christ  of  his  eternal  deity,  and  to  substi 
tute  an  imaginary  Godhead,  made  and  feigned  in  the  vain  hearts  of 
himself  and  his  masters,  into  the  room  thereof,  I  hope  the  discovery 
of  the  wickedness  and  vanity  of  his  attempt  will  not  be  unacceptable 
to  them  who  love  him  in  sincerity.  I  must  still  desire  the  reader 
not  to  expect  the  handling  of  the  doctrine  of  the  deity  of  Christ  at 
large,  with  the  confirmation  of  it  and  vindication  from  the  vain 
sophisms  wherewith  by  others,  as  well  as  by  Mr  B.,  it  hath  been 
opposed.  This  is  done  abundantly  by  other  hands.  In  the  next 
chapter  that  also  will  have  its  proper  place,  in  the  vindication  of 
many  texts  of  Scripture  from  the  exceptions  of  the  Racovians.  The 
removal  of  Mr  B/s  sophistry,  and  the  disentangling  of  weaker  souls, 
who  may  in  any  thing  be  intricated  by  his  queries,  are  my  present 
intendment.  To  make  our  way  clear  and  plain,  that  every  one  that 
runs  may  read  the  vanity  of  Mr  B/s  undertaking  against  the  Lord 
Jesus,  and  his  kicking  against  the  pricks  therein,  I  desire  to  pre 
mise  these  few  observations : — 

1.  Distinction  of  persons  (it  being  an  infinite  substance)  doth  no 
way  prove  difference  of  essence  between  the  Father  and  the  Son. 
Where  Christ,  as  mediator,  is  said  to  be  another  from  the  Father  or 
God,  spoken  personally  of  the  Father,  it  argues  not  in  the  least  that 
he  is  not  partaker  of  the  same  nature  with  him.  That  in  one  essence 


there  can  be  but  one  person  may  be  true  where  the  substance  is 
finite  and  limited,  but  hath  no  place  in  that  which  is  infinite. 

2.  Distinction  and  inequality  in  respect  of  office  in  Christ  doth 
not  in  the  least  take  away  equality  and  sameness  with  the  Father 
in  respect  of  nature  and  essence.1     A  son  of  the  same  nature  with 
his  father,  and  therein  equal  to  him,  may  in  office  be  his  inferior, 
his  subject. 

3.  The  advancement  and  exaltation  of  Christ  as  mediator  to  any 
dignity  whatever,  upon  or  in  reference  to  the  work  of  our  redemp 
tion  and  salvation,  is  not  at  all  inconsistent  with  that  essential  a£/a, 
honour,  dignity,  and  worth,  which  he  hath  in  himself  as  "God  blessed 
for  ever."     Though  he  humbled  himself  and  was  exalted,  yet  in  na 
ture  he  was  one  and  the  same,  he  changed  not. 

4.  The  Scripture's  asserting  the  humanity  of  Christ  with  the  con 
cernments  thereof,  as  his  birth,  life,  and  death,  doth  no  more  thereby 
deny  his  deity,  than,  by  asserting  his  deity,  with  the  essential  pro 
perties  thereof,  eternity,  omniscience,  and  the  like,  it  denies  his 

5.  God's  working  any  thing  in  and  by  Christ,  as  he  was  mediator, 
denotes  the  Father's  sovereign  appointment  of  the  things  mentioned 
to  be  done,  not  his  immediate  efficiency  in  the  doing  of  the  things 

The  consideration  of  these  few  things,  being  added  to  what  I  have 
said  before  in  general  about  the  way  of  dealing  with  our  adversaries 
in  these  great  and  weighty  things  of  the  knowledge  of  God,  will 
easily  deliver  us  from  any  great  trouble  in  the  examination  of  Mr 
B.'s  arguments  and  insinuations  against  the  deity  of  Christ;  which 
is  the  business  of  the  present  chapter. 

His  first  question  is,  "  How  many  Lords  of  Christians  are  there, 
by  way  of  distinction  from  that  one  God?"  and  he  answers,  Eph. 
iv.  5,  "  One  Lord." 

That  of  these  two  words  there  is  not  one  that  looks  towards  the 
confirmation  of  what  Mr  B.  chiefly  aims  at  in  the  question  proposed, 
is,  I  presume,  sufficiently  clear  in  the  light  of  the  thing  itself  inquired 
after.  Christ,  it  is  true,  is  the  one  Lord  of  Christians  ;  and  therefore 
God,  equal  with  the  Father.  He  is  also  one  Lord  in  distinction  from 
his  Father,  as  his  Father,  in  respect  of  his  personality,  in  which  re 
gard  there  are  three  that  bear  record  in  heaven,  of  which  he  is  one  ; 
but  in  respect  of  essence  and  nature  "  he  and  his  Father  are  one." 
Farther;  unless  he  were  one  God  with  his  Father,  it  is  utterly  im 
possible  he  should  be  the  one  Lord  of  Christians.  That  he  cannot 
be  our  Lord  in  the  sense  intended,  whom  we  ought  to  invocate  and 
worship,  unless  also  he  were  our  God,  shall  be  afterward  declared. 

1   Triv  t/faraytiv  rns  5»fX/*5]f  ftafQvs  avj/Xw^aif,  vvrip   fiftuv  ufaraffftrtti  riu   lettirau 

tv  <fufu  9-i«T»!Taf,  «xx'  \iufit  popifii;  SouX/xS;  «»  i'XaSi.  —  Atbanas.  Dial.  i.  contra  Maced. 


And  although  he  be  our  Lord  in  distinction  from  his  Father,  as  he 
is  also  our  mediator,  yet  he  is  "  the  same  God  "  with  him  "  which 
worketh  all  in  all,"  1  Cor.  xii.  6.  His  being  Lord,  then,  distinctly  in 
respect  of  his  mediation  hinders  not  his  being  God  in  respect  of  his 
participation  in  the  same  nature  with  his  Father.  And  though  here 
.  he  be  not  spoken  of  in  respect  of  his  absolute,  sovereign  lordship, 
but  of  his  lordship  over  the  church,  to  whom  the  whole  church  is 
spiritually  subject  (as  he  is  elsewhere  also  so  called  on  the  same  ac 
count,  as  John  xiii.  13  ;  Acts  vii.  59  ;  Rev.  xxii.  20),  yet  were  he 
not  Lord  in  that  sense  also,  he  could  not  be  so  in  this.  The  Lord 
our  God  only  is  to  be  worshipped.  "  My  Lord  and  my  God,"  says 
Thomas.  And  the  mention  of  "one  God"  is  here,  as  in  other  places, 
partly  to  deprive  all  false  gods  of  their  pretended  deity,  partly  to 
witness  against  the  impossibility  of  polytheism,  and  partly  to  mani 
fest  the  oneness  of  them  who  are  worshipped  as  God  the  Father. 
Word,  and  Spirit :  all  which  things  are  also  severally  testified  unto. 

His  second  question  is  an  inquiry  after  this  Lord,  who  he  is,  in 
these  words,  "  Who  is  that  one  Lord  ?"  and  the  answer  is  from  1  Cor. 
viii.  6,  "  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  are  all  things."  The  close  of  this 
second  answer  might  have  caused  Mr  B.  a  little  to  recoil  upon  his 
insinuation  in  the  first,  concerning  the  distinction  of  this  "one  Lord" 
from  that  "  one  God,"  in  the  sense  by  him  insisted  on.  Who  is  he 
"by  whom  are  all  things"  (in  the  same  sense  as  they  are  said  to  be 
"of"  the  Father)  ?  who  is  that  but  God  ?  "  He  that  made  all  things 
is  God,"  Heb.  iii.  4.  And  it  is  manifest  that  he  himself  was  not  made 
by  whom  all  things  were  made :  for  he  made  not  himself,  nor 
could  so  do,  unless  he  were  both  before  and  after  himself;  nor  was 
he  made  without  his  own  concurrence  by  another,  for  by  himself  are 
all  things.  Thus  Mr  B.  hath  no  sooner  opened  his  mouth  to  speak 
against  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  but,  by  the  just  judgment  of  God,  he 
stops  it  himself  with  a  testimony  of  God  against  himself,  which  he 
shall  never  be  able  to  rise  up  against  unto  eternity. 

And  it  is  a  manifest  perverting  and  corrupting  of  the  text  which 
we  have  in  Grotius'  gloss  upon  the  place,  who  interprets  the  ra 
iravra,  referred  to  the  Father  of  all  things  simply,  but  the  ra  cravra 
referred  to  Christ  of  the  things  only  of  the  new  creation,1  there 
being  not  the  least  colour  for  any  such  variation,  the  frame  and 
structure  of  the  words  requiring  them  to  be  expounded  uniformly 
throughout :  "  But  to  us  there  is  one  God,  the  Father,  of  whom  are 
all  things,  and  we  in  him ;  and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  are 
all  things,  and  we  by  him."  "  The  last  expression,  '  And  we  by  him/ 
relates  to  the  new  creation  ;  *  All  things/  to  the  first."  But  Grotius 
follows  Enjedinus  in  this  as  well  as  other  things.2 

1  Grot.  Annot.  in  1  Cor.  viii.  6. 

*  Enjedin.  Explicat.  loc.  Vet.  et  Nov.  Testam.  in  locum. 


His  inquiry  in  the  next  place  is  after  the  birth  of  Jesus  Christ;  in 
answer  whereunto  the  story  is  reported  from  Matthew  and  Luke  ; 
which  relating  to  his  human  nature,  and  no  otherwise  to  the  person 
of  the  Son  of  God  but  as  he  was  therein  "  made  flesh,"  or  assumed  the 
"holy  thing"  so  born  of  the  Virgin,  Lukei.  35,  into  personal  subsistence 
with  himself,  I  shall  let  pass  with  annexing  unto  it  the  observation 
before  mentioned,  namely,  that  what  is  affirmed  of  the  human  nature 
of  Christ  doth  not  at  all  prejudice  that  nature  of  his  in  respect 
whereof  he  is  said  to  be  "  in  the  beginning  with  God,"  and  to  be 
"God,"  and  with  reference  whereunto  himself  said,  "Before  Abraham 
was  I  am,"  John  i.  1,  2,  viii.  58;  Prov.  viii.  22,  etc.  God  "possessed 
him  in  the  beginning  of  his  way,"  being  then  his  "only-begotten  Son, 
full  of  grace  and  truth."  Mr  B.  indeed  hath  small  hopes  of  despoil 
ing  Christ  of  his  eternal  glory  by  his  queries,  if  they  spend  themselves 
in  such  fruitless  sophistry  as  this  : — "  Q.  4.  How  came  Jesus  Christ 
to  be  Lord  according  to  the  opinion  of  the  apostle  Paul?"  The 
answer  is,  Rom.  xiv.  9.  "  Q.  5.  What  saith  the  apostle  Peter  also 
concerning  the  time  and  manner  of  his  being  made  Lord? — A.  Acts 
ii.  32,  33,  36." 

Ans.  1.  That  Jesus  Christ  as  mediator,  and  in  respect  of  the  work 
of  redemption  and  salvation  of  the  church  to  him  committed,  was 
made  Lord  by  the  appointment,  authority,  and  designation  of  his 
Father,  we  do  not  say  was  the  opinion  of  Paul,  but  is  such  a  divine 
truth  as  we  have  the  plentiful  testimony  of  the  Holy  Ghost  unto. 
He  was  no  less  made  a  Lord  than  a  Priest  and  Prophet,  of  his 
Father.  But  that  the  eternal  lordship  of  Christ,  as  he  is  one  with 
his  Father,  "  God  blessed  for  ever,"  Rom.  ix.  5,  is  any  way  de 
nied  by  the  asserting  of  this  lordship  given  him  of  his  Father  as 
mediator,  Mr  B.  wholly  begs  of  men  to  apprehend  and  grant,  but 
doth  not  once  attempt  from  the  Scripture  to  manifest  or  prove.  The 
sum  of  what  Mr  B.  intends  to  argue  hence  is :  Christ  "submitting  him 
self  to  the  form  and  work  of  a  servant  unto  the  Father,  was  exalted 
by  him,  and  had  '  a  name  given  him  above  every  name ;'  therefore  he 
was  not  the  Son  of  God  and  equal  to  him."  That  his  condescension 
unto  office  is  inconsistent  with  his  divine  essence  is  yet  to  be  proved. 
But  may  we  not  beg  of  our  catechist,  at  his  leisure,  to  look  a  little 
farther  into  the  chapter  from  whence  he  takes  his  first  testimony 
concerning  the  exaltation  of  Christ  to  be  Lord  ?  perhaps  it  may  be 
worth  his  while.  As  another  argument  to  that  of  the  dominion  and 
lordship  of  Christ,  to  persuade  believers  to  a  mutual  forbearance  as 
to  judging  of  one  another,  he  adds,  verse  10,  "  We  shall  all  stand 
before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ."  And  this,  verse  11,  the  apostle 
proves  from  that  testimony  of  the  prophet  Isaiah,  chap.  xlv.  23,  as  he 
renders  the  sense  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  "  As  I  live,  saith  the  Lord, 
eyery  knee  shall  bow  to  me,  and  every  tongue  shall  confess  to  God." 


So  that  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  is  that  Jehovah,  that  God,  to  whom 
all  subjection  is  due,  and  in  particular  that  of  standing  before  his 
judgment-seat.  But  this  is  overlooked  by  Grotius,  and  not  answered 
to  any  purpose  by  Enjedinus,  and  why  should  Mr  B.  trouble  himself 
with  it  ? 

2.  For  the  time  assigned  by  him  of  his  being  made  Lord,  specified 
by  the  apostle,  it  doth  not  denote  his  first  investiture  with  that  office 
and  power,  but  the  solemn  admission  into  the  glorious  execution  of 
that  lordly  power  which  was  given  him  as  mediator.  At  his  incar 
nation  and  birth,  God  affirms  by  the  angel  that  he  was  then  "  Christ 
the  Lord,"  Luke  ii.  11.  And  when  "  he  brought  his  first-begotten 
into  the  world,  the  angels  were  commanded  to  worship  him ;"  which 
if  he  were  not  a  Lord,  I  suppose  Mr  B.  will  not  say  they  could  have 
done.  Yea,  and  as  he  was  both  believed  in  and  worshipped  before 
his  death  and  resurrection,  John  ix.  38,  xiv.  1,  which  is  to  be  per 
formed  only  to  the  Lord  our  God,  Matt.  iv.  10,  so  he  actually  in 
some  measure  exercised  his  lordship  towards  and  over  angels,  men, 
devils,  and  the  residue  of  the  creation,  as  is  known  from  the  very 
story  of  the  Gospel,  not  denying  himself  to  be  a  king,  yea,  witness 
ing  thereunto  when  he  was  to  be  put  to  death,  Luke  xxiii.  3,  John 
xviii.  37,  as  he  was  from  his  first  showing  unto  men,  chap.  i.  49. 

"  Q.  6.  Did  not  Jesus  Christ  approve  himself  to  be  God  by  his 
miracles ;  and  did  he  not  those  miracles  by  a  divine  nature  of  his 
own,  and  because  he  was  God  himself?  What  is  the  determination 
of  the  apostle  Peter  in  this  behalf  ?— A  Acts  ii.  22,  x.  38." 

The  intend  ment  of  Mr  B.  in  this  question,  as  is  evident  by  his 
inserting  of  these  words  in  a  different  character,  "By  a  divine  nature 
of  his  own,  and  because  he  was  God  himself/'  is  to  disprove  or  in 
sinuate  an  answer  unto  the  argument  taken  from  the  miracles  that 
Christ  did  to  confirm  his  deity.  The  naked  working  of  miracles,  I 
confess,  without  the  influence  of  such  other  considerations  as  this 
argument  is  attended  withal  in  relation  to  Jesus  Christ,  will  not 
alone  of  itself  assert  a  divine  nature  in  him  who  is  the  instrument 
of  their  working  or  production.  Though  they  are  from  divine  power, 
or  they  are  not  miracles,  yet  it  is  not  necessary  that  he  by  whom 
they  are  wrought  should  be  possessor  of  that  divine  power,  as  "  by 
whom"  may  denote  the  instrumental  and  not  the  principal  cause  oi 
them.  But  for  the  miracles  wrought  by  Jesus  Christ,  as  God  is  said 
to  do  them  "by  him,"  because  he  appointed  him  to  do  them,  as  he 
designed  him  to  his  offices,  and  thereby  gave  testimony  to  the  truth 
of  the  doctrine  he  preached  from  his  bosom  as  also  because  he  was 
"  with  him,"  not  in  respect  of  power  and  virtue,  but  as  the  Father  in 
the  Son,  John  x.  38  ;  so  he  working  these  miracles  by  his  own  power 
and  at  his  own  will,  even  as  his  Father  doth,  chap.  v.  21,  and  him 
self  giving  power  and  authority  to  others  to  work  miracles  by  his 


strength  and  in  his  name,  Matt.  x.  8,  Mark  xvi.  17,  18,  Luke  x.  19, 
there  is  that  eminent  evidence  of  his  deity  in  his  working  of  mira 
cles  as  Mr  B.  can  by  no  means  darken  or  obscure  by  pointing  to 
that  which  is  of  a  clear  consistency  therewithal,  —  as  is  his  Father's 
appointment  of  him  to  do  them,  whereby  he  is  said  to  do  them  "  in 
his  name,"  etc.,  as  in  the  place  cited,  of  which  afterward.  Acts  ii.  22, 
the  intendment  of  Peter  is,  to  prove  that  he  was  the  Messiah  of 
whom  he  spake;  and  therefore  he  calls  him  "Jesus  of  Nazareth,"  as 
pointing  out  the  man  whom  they  knew  by  that  name,  and  whom, 
seven  or  eight  weeks  before,  they  had  crucified  and  rejected.  That 
this  man  was  "approved  of  God,"1  he  convinces  them  from  the 
miracles  which  God  wrought  by  him  ;  which  was  enough  for  his  pre 
sent  purpose.  Of  the  other  place  there  is  another  reason  ;  for  though 
Grotius  expounds  these  words,  "On  6  Qils  fa  per  auroD,  "For  God  was 
with  him,"  "God  always  loved  him,  and  always  heard  him,  according 
to  Matt.  iii.  17"  (where  yet  there  is  a  peculiar  testimony  given  to  the 
divine  sonship  of  Jesus  Christ)  "  and  John  xi.  42,"  yet  the  words  of 
our  Saviour  himself  about  the  same  business  give  us  another  inter 
pretation  and  sense  of  them.  This,  I  say,  he  does,  John  x.  37,  38, 
"  If  I  do  not  the  works  of  my  Father,  believe  me  not.  But  if  I  do, 
though  ye  believe  not  me,  believe  the  works  :  that  ye  may  know,  and 
believe,  that  the  Father  is  in  me,  and  I  in  him."  In  the  doing  of 
these  works,  the  Father  was  so  with  him  as  that  he  was  in  him,  and 
he  in  the  Father;  not  only  evtpyqnKus,  but  by  that  divine  indwelling 
which  oneness  of  nature  gives  to  Father  and  Son. 

His  seventh  question  is  exceeding  implicate  and  involved  :  a  great 
deal  is  expressed  that  Mr  B.  would  deny,  but  by  what  inference  from 
the  scriptures  he  produceth  doth  not  at  all  appear.  The  words  of 
it  are,  "  Could  not  Christ  do  all  things  of  himself;  and  was  it  not  an 
eternal  Son  of  God  that  took  flesh  upon  him,  and  to  whom  the 
human  nature  of  Christ  was  personally  united,  that  wrought  all 
these  works  ?  Answer  me  to  these  things  in  the  words  of  the  Son 
himself.—  A.  John  v.  19,  20,  30,  xiv.  10." 

The  inference  which  alone  appears  from  hence  is  of  the  same 
nature  with  them  that  are  gone  before.  That  Christ  could  not  do 
all  things  of  himself,  that  he  was  not  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  that 
he  took  not  flesh,  is  that  which  is  asserted  ;  but  the  proof  of  all  this 
doth  disappear.  Christ  being  accused  by  the  Jews,  and  persecuted 
for  healing  a  man  on  the  Sabbath-day,  and  their  rage  being  in 
creased  by  his  asserting  his  equality  with  the  Father  (of  which  after- 
ward),  John  v.  17,  18,  he  lets  them  know  that  in  the  discharge  of  the 
office  committed  to  him  he  did  nothing  but  according  to  the  will, 
commandment,  and  appointment,  of  his  Father,  with  whom  he  is 

1  'AtfoSt^ii-yfiivov,  i.  C.,  o'lat  /u.ti  dft,<piff£ti<rovfttvov,  «XX*  avr^i^ttyftinoii  J;a  ruv  'ipyuv  uv  i 
alrou  o  Qios,  ori  dva  6i»v  nv.  —  GlUJC.  Schol. 


equal,  and  doth  of  his  own  will  also  the  things  that  he  doth ;  so  that 
they  had  no  more  to  plead  against  him  for  doing  what  he  did  than 
they  had  against  him  whom  they  acknowledged  to  be  God  :  wherein 
he  is  so  far  from  declining  the  assertion  of  his  own  deity  (which  that 
he  maintained  the  Jews  apprehended,  affirming  that  he  made  him 
self  equal  with  God,  which  none  but  God  is  or  can  be,  for  between 
God  and  that  which  is  not  God  there  is  no  proportion,  much  less 
equality)  as  that  he  farther  confirms  it,  by  affirming  that  he  "doeth 
whatever  the  Father  doeth,  and  that  as  the  Father  quickeneth  whom 
he  will,  so  he  quickeneth  whom  he  will."  That  redoubled  assertion, 
then,  of  Christ,  that  he  can  do  nothing  of  himself,  is  to  be  applied 
to  the  matter  under  consideration.  He  had  not  done,  nor  could  do, 
any  work  but  such  as  his  Father  did  also ;  it  was  impossible  he 
should,  not  only  because  he  would  not  (in  which  sense  rb  dZovXqrov 
is  one  kind  of  those  things  which  are  impossible),  but  also  because  of 
the  oneness  in  will,  nature,  and  power,  of  himself  and  his  Father, 
which  he  asserts  in  many  particulars.  Nor  doth  he  temper  his 
speech  as  one  that  would  ascribe  all  the  honour  to  the  Father,  and 
so  remove  the  charge  that  he  made  a  man  equal  to  the  Father,  as 
Grotius  vainly  imagines  j1  for  although  as  man  he  acknowledges  his 
subjection  to  the  Father,  yea,  as  mediator  in  the  work  he  had  in 
hand,  and  his  subordination  to  him  as  the  Son,  receiving  all  things 
from  him  by  divine  and  eternal  communication,  yet  the  action  or 
work  that  gave  occasion  to  that  discourse  being  an  action  of  his 
person,  wherein  he  was  God,  he  all  along  asserts  his  own  equality 
therein  with  the  Father,  as  shall  afterward  be  more  fully  mani 

So  that  though  in  regard  of  his  divine  personality  as  the  Son  he 
hath  all  things  from  the  Father,  being  begotten  by  him,  and  as 
mediator  doth  all  things  by  his  appointment  and  in  his  name,  yet 
he  in  himself  is  still  one  with  the  Father  as  to  nature  and  essence, 
"  God  to  be  blessed  for  evermore."  And  that  it  was  "an  eternal  Son 
of  God  that  took  flesh  upon  him/'  etc.,  hath  Mr.  B.  never  read  that 
"  in  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  God,"  that  "  the 
Word  was  made  flesh ;"  that  "  God  was  manifested  in  the  flesh;" 
and  that  "  God  sent  forth  his  Son,  made  of  a  woman,  made  under 
the  law?"  of  which  places  afterward,  in  their  vindication  from  the 
exceptions  of  his  masters. 

His  eighth  question  is  of  the  very  same  import  with  that  going 
before,  attempting  to  exclude  Jesus  Christ  from  the  unity  of  essence 
with  his  Father,  by  his  obedience  to  him,  and  his  Father's  accepta 
tion  of  him  in  the  work  of  mediation;  which  being  a  most  ridiculous 

1  "  Semper  ea  quae  de  se  praedicare  cogitur  Christus,  ita  temperat  ut  omnem  honorera 
referat  ad  Patrem,  et  removeat  illud  crimen,  quasi  hominem  Patri  sequalem  faciat." — 
Grot.  Annot.  in  Johan.  cap.  T.  30. 


begging  of  the  thing  in  question,  as  to  what  he  pretends  in  the 
query  to  be  argumentative,  I  shall  not  farther  insist  upon  it. 

Q.  9.  We  are  come  to  the  head  of  this  discourse,  and  of  Mr  B/s 
design  in  this  chapter,  and,  indeed,  of  the  greatest  design  that  he 
drives  in  religion,  namely,  the  denial  of  the  eternal  deity  of  the 
Son  of  God ;  which  not  only  in  this  place  directly,  but  in  sundry 
others  covertly,  he  doth  invade  and  oppose.  His  question  is,  "  Doth 
the  Scripture  account  Christ  to  be  the  Son  of  God  because  he  was 
eternally  begotten  out  of  the  divine  essence,  or  for  other  reasons 
agreeing  to  him  only  as  a  man?  Rehearse  the  passages  to  this  pur 
pose."  His  answer  is  from  Luke  i.  31-35;  John  x.  36;  Acts  xiii. 
32,  33;  Eev.  i.  5;  Col.  i.  18;  Heb.  i.  4,  5,  v.  5;  Rom.  viii.  29;  most 
of  which  places  are  expressly  contrary  to  him  in  his  design,  as  the 
progress  of  our  discourse  will  discover. 

This,  I  say,  being  the  head  of  the  difference  between  us  in  this 
chapter,  after  I  have  rectified  one  mistake  in  Mr  B/s  question,  I 
shall  state  the  whole  matter  so  as  to  obviate  farther  labour  and 
trouble  about  sundry  other  ensuing  queries.  For  Mr  B/s  question, 
then,  we  say  not  that  the  Son  is  begotten  eternally  out  of  the  divine 
essence,  but  in  it,  not  by  an  eternal  act  of  the  Divine  Being,  but  of 
the  person  of  the  Father ;  which  being  premised,  I  shall  proceed. 

The  question  that  lies  before  us  is,  "  Doth  the  Scripture  account 
Christ  to  be  the  Son  of  God  because  he  was  eternally  begotten  out 
of  the  divine  essence,  or  for  other  reasons  agreeing  to  him  only  as  a 
man?  Rehearse  the  passages  to  this  purpose/' 

The  reasons,  as  far  as  I  can  gather,  which  Mr  B.  lays  at  the  bottom 
of  this  appellation,  are, — 1.  His  birth  of  the  Virgin,  from  Luke  i. 
30-35.  2.  His  mission,  or  sending  into  the  world  by  the  Father, 
John  x.  36.  3.  His  resurrection  with  power,  Acts  xiii.  32,  33;  Rev. 
i.  5;  CoL  i.  18.  4.  His  exaltation,  Heb.  v.  5;  Rom.  viii.  29. 

For  the  removal  of  all  this  from  prejudicing  the  eternal  sonship 
of  Jesus  Christ  there  is  an  abundant  sufficiency,  arising  from  the 
consideration  of  this  one  argument:  If  Jesus  Christ  be  called  the 
"Son  of  God"  antecedently  to  his  incarnation,  mission,  resurrection, 
and  exaltation,  then  there  is  a  reason  and  cause  of  that  appellation 
before  and  above  all  these  considerations,  and  it  cannot  be  on  any  of 
these  accounts  that  he  is  called  the  "  Son  of  God ;"  but  that  he  is  so 
called  antecedently  to  all  these,  I  shall  afterward  abundantly  mani 
fest.  Yet  a  little  farther  process  in  this  business,  as  to  the  particu 
lars  intimated,  may  not  be  unseasonable. 

First,  then,  I  shall  propose  the  causes  on  the  account  whereof  alone 
these  men  affirm  that  Jesus  Christ  is  called  the  "  Son  of  God."  Of 
these  the  first  and  chiefest  they  insist  upon  is  his  birth  of  the  Virgin, 
— namely,  that  he  was  called  the  "  Son  of  God"  because  he  was  con 
ceived  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  our  catechist  in  the  first  place  pro- 

VOL.  XIL  12 


poses;  and  before  him,  his  masters.  So  the  Kacovians,  in  answer  to 
that  question,  "  Is  therefore  the  Lord  Jesus  a  mere  man?"  answer, 
"  By  no  means:  for  he  was  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  born  of 
the  Virgin;  and  therefore  from  his  birth  and  conception  was  the 
Son  of  God,  as  we  read  in  Luke  i.  35;"1 — the  place  insisted  on  by 
the  gentleman  we  are  dealing  withal. 

Of  the  same  mind  are  the  residue  of  their  companions.  So  do 
Ostorodius  and  Voidovius  give  an  account  of  their  faith  in  their 
"  Compendium,"  as  they  call  it,  "  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Christian 
Church  flourishing  now  chiefly  in  Poland."  "  They  teach/'  say  they, 
"  Jesus  Christ  to  be  that  man  that  was  conceived  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  born  of  the  Virgin ;  besides  and  before  whom  they  acknowledge  no 
only-begotten  Son  of  God  truly  existing.  Moreover,  they  teach  him 
to  be  God,  and  the  only-begotten  Son  of  God,  by  reason  of  his  con 
ception  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  etc.8  Smalcius  hath  written  a  whole 
book  of  the  true  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ ;  wherein  he  hath  gathered 
together  whatever  excellencies  they  will  allow  to  be  ascribed  unto 
him,  making  his  deity  to  be  the  exurgency  of  them  all.  Therefore 
is  he  God,  and  the  Son  of  God,  because  the  things  he  there  treats  of 
are  ascribed  unto  him !  Among  these,  in  his  third  chapter,  which  is 
"  Of  the  conception  and  nativity  of  Jesus  Christ,"  he  gives  this  princi 
pal  account  why  he  is  called  the  "Son  of  God,"  even  from  his  concep 
tion  and  nativity.  "  He  was,"  saith  he,  "  conceived  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary;  because  of  which  manner  of  concep 
tion  and  nativity  he  was  by  the  angel  called  the  'Son  of  God/  and 
so  may  really  be  called  the  '  natural  Son  of  God/  because  he  was 
born  such.  Only,  Jesus  Christ  was  brought  forth  to  light  by  God 
his  Father  without  the  help  of  man."8 

The  great  master  of  the  herd  himself,  from  whom,  indeed,  the  rest 
do  glean  and  gather  almost  all  that  they  take  so  much  pains  to 
scatter  about  the  world,  gives  continually  this  reason  of  Christ's  be 
ing  called  the  "Son  of  God"  and  his  "natural  Son/'  "  I  say,"  saith 
he,  "  that  Christ  is  deservedly  called  the  '  natural  Son  of  God/  be 
cause  he  was  born  the  Son  of  God,  although  he  was  not  begotten  of 
the  substance  of  God.  And  that  he  was  bom  the  Son  of  God  another 

1  "  Ergo  Dominus  Jesus  est  purus  homo  ? — Ans.  Nullo  pacto;  etenim  est  conceptus 
a  Spiritu  Sancto,  natus  ex  Maria  Virgine,  eoque  ab  ipsa  conceptione  et  ortu  Filius  Dei 
est,  ut  de  ea  re  Luc.  i.  35  legimus." — Cat.  Rac.  de  persona  Christi,  cap.  i. 

2  *  Jesum  Christum  decent  esse  hominem  ilium  a  Spiritu  Sancto  conceptum,  et  natum 
ex  beata  Virgine ;  extra  vel  ante  quern  nullum  agnoscunt  esse  (aut)  fuisse  re  ipsa  exis- 
tentem  unigenitum  Dei  Filium.     Porro  hunc  Deum,  et  Filium  Dei  unigenitum  esse  do- 
cent  turn  ratione  conceptionis  a  Spiritu  Sancto,"  etc. — Compendiolum  Doctrinse  Eccl. 
Christianse,  etc.,  cap.  i. 

8  "  Conceptus  enim  est  de  Spiritu  Sancto,  et  natus  ex  Virgine  Maria  ;  ob  id  genus 
oonceptionis,  et  nativitatis  modum,  Filius  etiam  Dei  ab  ipso  angelo  vocatus  fuit,  et  ita 
naturalis  Dei  Filius  (quia  scilicet  tails  natus  fuit)  dici  vere  potest.  Solus  Jesus  Chris- 
tus  a  Deo  Patre  suo  absque  opera  viri  in  lumen  productus  est.'' — Smalc.  de  Vera 
Divin.  Jes.  Christ,  cap.  iii. 


way,  and  not  by  the  generation  of  the  substance  of  God,  the  \vords 
of  the  angel  prove,  Luke  i.  35.  Therefore,  because  that  man,  Jesus 
of  Nazareth,  who  is  called  Christ,  was  begotten  not  by  the  help  of 
any  man,  but  by  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  womb  of 
his  mother,  he  is  therefore,  or  for  that  cause,  called  the  '  Son  of 
God/"1  So  he  against  Weik  the  Jesuit.  He  is  followed  by  Yol- 
kelius,  lib.  v.  cap.  xi.  p.  468 ;  whose  book,  indeed,  is  a  mere  casting 
into  a  kind  of  a  method  what  was  written  by  Socinus  and  others, 
scattered  in  sundry  particulars,  and  whose  method  is  pursued  and 
improved  by  Episcopius.  Jonas  Schlichtingius,  amongst  them  all, 
seems  to  do  most  of  himself.  I  shall  therefore  add  his  testimony,  to 
show  their  consent  in  the  assignation  of  this  cause  of  the  appellation 
of  the  "  Son  of  God,"  ascribed  to  our  blessed  Saviour.  "  There 
are/'  saith  he,  "  many  sayings  of  Scripture  which  show  that  Christ 
is  in  a  peculiar  manner,  and  on  an  account  not  common  to  any 
other,  the  Son  of  God  ;  but  yet  we  may  not  hence  conclude  that  he 
is  a  Son  on  a  natural  account,  when  besides  this,  and  that  more  com 
mon,  another  reason  may  be  given  which  hath  place  in  Christ.  Is 
he  not  the  Son  of  God  on  a  singular  account,  and  that  which  is 
common  to  no  other,  if  of  God  himself,  by  the  virtue  and  efficacy  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  he  was  conceived  and  begotten  in  the  womb  of  his 

And  this  is  the  only  buckler  which  they  have  to  keep  off  the 
sword  of  that  argument  for  the  deity  of  Christ,  from  his  being  the 
proper  Son  of  God,  from  the  throat  and  heart  of  that  cause  which 
they  have  undertaken.  And  yet  how  faintly  they  hold  it  is  evident 
from  the  expressions  of  this  most  cunning  and  skilful  of  all  their 
champions:  "There  may  another  reason  be  given;"  which  is  the 
general  evasion  of  them  all  from  any  express  testimony  of  Scripture. 
"  The  words  may  have  another  sense,  therefore  nothing  from  them 
can  be  concluded;"  whereby  they  have  left  nothing  stable  or  un 
shaken  in  Christian  religion;  and  yet  they  wipe  their  mouths,  and 
say  they  have  done  no  evil. 

But  now,  lest  any  one  should  say  that  they  can  see  no  reason  why 

1  "  Dico  igitur,  Christum  merito  dici  posse  Filium  Dei  naturalem,  quia  natus  est  Dei 
Tilius,  tametsi  ex  ipsa  Dei  substantia  non  fuerit  generatus.  Natum  autem  ilium  sub 
alia  ratione,  quam  per  generationem  ex  ipsius  Dei  substantia,  probant  angeli  verba, 
Marise  matri  ejus  dicta,  Luc.  i.  35.  Quia  igitur  homo  ille  Jesus  Nazarenus,  qui  dic- 
tus  est  Christus,  non  viri  alicujus  opera,  sed  Spiritus  Sancti  operatione  generatus  est  in 
niatris  utero,  propterea  Filius  Dei  est  vocatus." — Faust.  Socin.  Responsio  ad  Weik.  cap. 
iv.  p.  202. 

5  "  Sunt  quidem  plurima  dicta  quse  ostendunt  Christum  peculiar!  prorsus  nee  ulli 
alio  communi  ratione  esse  Dei  Filium ;  non  tamen  hinc  concludere  licet  eum  esse 
natural!  ratione  filium,  cum  prseter  hanc,  et  illam  communem,  alia  dari  possit, 
et  in  Christo  reipsa  locum  habeat.  Nonne  singular!  prorsus  ratione,  nee  ulli  com 
muni,  Dei  Filius  est  Christus,  si  ab  ipso  Deo,  vi  et  efficacia  Spiritus  Sancti,  in  utero 
virginis  conceptus  fuit  et  genitus  ? "— Schlichtiiig.  ad  Meisner.  artic.  de  Trinit. 
p.  1GO. 


Christ  should  be  called  the  "  Son  of  God"  because  he  was  so  con 
ceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  nor  wherefore  God  should  therefore  in  a 
peculiar  manner,  and  more  .eminently  than  in  respect  of  any  other, 
be  called  the  "  Father  of  Christ,"  to  prevent  any  objection  that  on 
this  hand  might  arise,  Smalcius  gives  an  account  whence  this  is,  and 
why  God  is  called  the  "  Father  of  Christ,"  and  what  he  did  in  his 
conception;  which,  for  the  abomination  of  it,  I  had  rather  you 
should  hear  in  his  words  than  in  mine.  In  his  answer  to  the  se 
cond  part  of  the  refutation  of  Socinus  by  Smiglecius,  cap.  xvii.  xviii., 
he  contends  to  manifest  and  make  good  that  Christ  was  the  "  Son  of 
God  according  to  the  .flesh,"  in  direct  opposition  to  that  of  the  apostle, 
"  He  was  made  of  the  seed  of  David  according  to  the  flesh,  and  de 
clared  to  be  the  Son  of  God,"  etc.,  Rom.  i.  3,  4.  He  says  then,  cap. 
xviii.  p.  156,  "  Socinus  affirmat  Deum.  in  generatione  Christi  vices 
patris  supplevisse."  But  how,  I  pray  ?  Why,  "  Satis  est  ad  osten- 
dendum,  Deum  in  generatione  Christi  vices  viri  supplevisse,  si  osten- 
datur  Deum  id  ad  Christi  generationem  adjecisse,  quod  in  genera 
tione  hominis  ex  parte  viri  ad  hominem  produeendum  adjici  solet." 
But  what  is  that,  or  how  is  that  done  ?  "  Nos  Dei  virtutem  in  Vir 
ginia  uterum  aliquam  substantiam  creatam  vel  immisisse,  aut  ibi 
creasse  affirmamus,  ex  qua  juncto  eo,  quod  ex  ipsius  Virginis  sub- 
stantia  accessit,  verus  homo  generatus  fuit.  Alias  enim  homo  ille, 
Dei  Filius  a  conceptione  et  nativitate  proprie  non  fuisset,"  cap.  xvii. 
p.  150.  Very  good  ;  unless  this  abominable  figment  may  pass  cur 
rent,  Christ  was  not  the  Son  of  God.  Let  the  reader  observe,  by  the 
way,  that  .they  cannot  but  acknowledge  -Christ  to  have  been,  and  to 
have  been  called,  the  "  Son  of  God"  in  a  most  peculiar  manner.  To 
avoid  the  evidence  of  the  inference  from  thence,  that  therefore  he  is 
God,  of  the  same  substance  with  his  Father,  they  have  only  this 
shift,  to  say  he  is  called  the  "  Son  of  God"  upon  the  account  of  that 
whereof  there  is  not  the  least  tittle  nor  word  in  the  whole  book  of 
God,  yea,  which  is  expressly  contrary  to  the  testimony  thereof ;  and 
unless  this  be  granted,  they  affirm  that  Christ  cannot  be  called  the 
"  Son  of  God."  But  let  us  hear  this  great  rabbi  of  Mr  B.'s  religion 
a  little  farther  clearing  up  this  mystery  : — "  Necessitas  magna  fuit, 
ut  Christus  ab  initio  vitse  suse  esset  Deo  Filius,  qualis  futurus  non 
fuisset  nisi  Dei  virtute  aliquid  creatum  fuisset,  quod  ad  constituen- 
dum  Christi  corpus,  una  cum  Mariae  sanguine  concurrit.  Mansit 
autem  nihilominus  sanguis  Marias  Virginis  purissimus,  etiamsi  cum 
alio  aliquo  semine  commixtus  fuit.  Potuit  enim  tam  purum,  imo 
purius  semen,  a  Deo  creari,  et  proculdubio  creatum  fuit,  quam  erat 
sanguis  Marias.  Coinmunis  denique  sensus  et  fides  Christianorum 
omnium,  quod  Christus  non  ex  virili  semine  conceptus  sit ;  primum 
communis  error  censend us  est,  si  sacris  literis  repugnet:  Deinde  id 
quod  omnes  sentiunt,  facile  cum  ipsa  veritate  couciliari  potest,  ut 


scilicet  semen  illud,  quod  a  Deo  creatum,  et  cum  semine  Marias  con- 
junctum  fuit,  dicatur  non  virile,  quia  non  a  viro  profectum  sit,  vel 
ex  viro  in  uterum  Virginis  translatum,  ut  quidam  opinantur,  qui 
semen  Josephi  translatum  in  Virginis  uterum  credunt,"  cap.  xviii.  p. 
158.  And  thus  far  are  men  arrived:  Unless  this  horrible  figment 
may  be  admitted,  Christ  is  not  the  Son  of  God.  He  who  is  the 
"  true  God  and  eternal  life"  will  one  day  plead  the  cause  of  his  own 
glory  against  these  men. 

I  insist  somewhat  the  more  on  these  things,  that  men  may 
judge  the  better  whether  in  all  probability  Mr  B.,  in  his  "  impartial 
search  into  the  Scripture,"  did  not  use  the  help  of  some  of  them  that 
went  before  him  in  the  discovery  of  the  same  things  which  he  boasts 
himself  to  have  found  out. 

And  this  is  the  first  reason  which  our  catechist  hath  taken  from 
his  masters  to  communicate  to  his  scholars  why  Jesus  Christ  is  called 
the  "  Son  of  God."  This  he  and  they  insist  on  exclusively  to  his  eter 
nal  sonship,  or  being  the  Son  of  God  in  respect  of  his  eternal  gene 
ration  of  the  substance  of  his  Father. 

The  other  causes  which  they  assign  why  he  is  called  the  "  Son  of 
God"  I  shall  very  briefly  point  unto.  By  the  way  that  hath  been 
spoken  of,  they  say  he  was  the  Son  of  God,  the  natural  Son  of  God. 
But  they  say  he  was  the  Son  of  God  before  he  was  God.  He  grew 
afterward  to  be  a  God  by  degrees,  as  he  had  those  graces  and  excel 
lencies  and  that  power  given  him  wherein  his  Godhead  doth  consist. 
So  that  he  was  the  Son  of  God,  but  not  God  (in  their  own  sense) 
until  a  while  after;  and  then  when  he  was  so  made  a  God,  he  came 
thereby  to  be  more  the  Son  of  God.  But  by  this  addition  to  his 
sonship  he  became  the  adopted  Son  of  God ;  as,  by  being  begotten, 
as  was  before  revealed,  he  was  the  natural  Son  of  God.  Let  us  hear 
Smalcius  a  little  opening  these  mysteries.  "  Neither,"  saith  he,  "  was 
Christ  God  all  the  while  he  was  the  Son  of  God.  To  be  the  Son  of 
God  is  referred  to  his  birth,  and  all  understand  how  one  may  be 
called  the  ''Son  of  God"  for  his  birth  or  original.  But  God  none  can 
be  (besides  that  one  God),  but  for  his  likeness  to  God.  So  that 
when  Christ  was  made  like  God,  by  the  divine  qualities  which  were 
in  him,  he  was  most  rightly  so  far  the  Son  of  God  as  he  was  God, 
and  so  far  God  as  he  was  the  Son  of  God.  But  before  he  had 
obtained  that  likeness  to  God,  properly  he  could  not  be  said  to  be 

1 "  Nee  enim  omni  tempore  quo  Christus  Films  Dei  fuit,  Deus  etiam  fait.  Filium 
enim  Dei  esse,  ad  nativitatem  etiam  referri,  et  ob  ortum  ipsum  aliquem  Dei  Filium 
appellari  posse  nemo  non  intelligit.  At  Deum  (prseter  unum  ilium  Deum)  nemo  esse 
potest,  nisi  propter  similitudinem  cum  Deo.  Itaque  tune  cum  Christus  Deo  similis 
factus  esset  per  divinas  quae  in  ipso  erant  qualitates,  summo  jure  eatenus  Dei  Filius, 
qua  Deus,  et  vicissim  eatenus  Deus,  qua  Dei  Filius.  At  ante  obtentam  illam  cum  Deo 
similitudinem  Deus  proprie  dici  non  potuit." — Smalc.  Respon.  ad  Smiglec.  cap.  xvii. 
p.  154. 


And  these  are  some  of  those  monstrous  figments  which,  under 
pretence  of  bare  adherence  to  the  Scripture,  our  catechist  would 
obtrude  upon  us :  First,  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God  ;  then,  growing 
like  God  in  divine  qualities,  he  is  made  a  God ;  and  so  becomes  the 
Son  of  God.  And  this,  if  the  man  may  be  believed,  is  the  pure 
doctrine  of  the  Scripture !  And  if  Christ  be  a  God  because  he  is 
like  God,  by  the  same  reason  we  are  all  gods  in  Mr  B/s  conceit, 
being  all  made  in  the  image  and  likeness  of  God ;  which,  says  he,  by 
ein  we  have  not  lost. 

But  what  kind  of  sonship  is  added  to  Christ  by  all  these  excel 
lencies  whereby  he  is  made  like  to  God  ?  The  same  author  tells  us 
that  it  is  a  sonship  by  adoption,  and  that  Christ -on  these  accounts 
was  the  adopted  Son  of  God.  "  If,"  saith  he,  "  what  is  the  signifi 
cation  of  this  word  adoptivus  may  be  considered  from  the  Scripture, 
we  deny  not  but  that  Christ  in  this  manner  may  be  called  the 
'  adopted  Son  of  God/  seeing  that  such  is  the  property  and  condition 
of  an  adopted  son  that  he  is  not  born  such  as  he  is  afterward  made 
by  adoption.  Certainly,  seeing  that  Christ  was  not  such  by  nature, 
or  in  his  conception  and  nativity,  as  he  was  afterward  in  his  succeed 
ing  age,  he  may  justly  on  that  account  be  called  the  'adopted  Son  of 
God/"1  Such  miserable  plunges  doth  Satan  drive  men  into  whose 
eyes  he  hath  once  blinded,  that  the  glorious  light  of  the  gospel 
should  not  shine  into  them !  And  by  this  we  may  understand, 
whatever  they  add  farther  concerning  the  sonship  of  Christ,  that 
all  belongs  to  this  adopted  sonship;  whereof  there  is  not  one  tittle 
in  the  whole  book  of  God.  , 

The  reasons  they  commonly  add  why  in  this  sense  Christ  is  called 
the  "  Son  of  God"  are  the  same  which  they  give  why  he  is  called 
"  God."  "  He  is  the  only-begotten  Son  of  God,"  say  the  authors  of 
the  Compendium  of  the  religion  before  mentioned,  "  because  God 
sanctified  him,  and  sent  him  into  the  world,  and  because  of  his  ex 
altation  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  whereby  he  was  made  our  Lord 
and  God."3 

If  the  reader  desire  to  hear  them  speak  in  their  own  words,  let 
him  consult  Smalcius,  De  Vera  Divinit.  Jes.  Christ,  cap.  vii.,  etc. ; 
Socin.  Disput.  cum  Erasmo  Johan.  Rationum  quatuor  antecedent. 
Eefut.  Disput.  de  Christi  Natura,  pp.  14,  15  ;  Adversus  Weikum, 
pp.  224,  225,  et  passim ;  Volkel.  De  Vera  Relig.  lib.  v.  cap.  x.-xii. ; 

1  "  Si  quae  sit  vocabuli  '  adoptivus'  significatio  ex  mente  sacrarum literarum  conside- 
retur,  nos  non  inficiari  Christum  suo  modo  esse  adoptivum  Dei  Filium ;  quia  enim 
adoptivi  filii  ea  est  conditio  et  proprietas,  ut  talis  non  sit  natus  qualis  factus  est  post 
adoptionem.  Certe  quia  Christus  talis  natura,  vel  in  ipsa  conceptione  et  nativitate  non 
fuit,  qualis  postea  fuit  aetate  accedente,  sine  injuria  adoptivus  Dei  Filius  eo  modo  did 
potest.'' — Smalc.  ad  Smiglec.  cap.  xx.  p.  175. 

*  "  Filium  Dei  unigenitum  esse  decent,  turn  propter  sanctificationem,  ac  missionem  in 
mundum,  turn  exaltationem  ad  Dei  dextram,  adeo  ut  factum  Dominum  et  Deum  nos 
trum  affirmant." — Compend.  Relig.  cap.  i.  p.  2. 


Jonas  Schlicht.  ad  Meisner.,  pp.  192,  193,  etc.;  especially  the  same 
person  fully  and  distinctly  opening  and  declaring  the  minds  of  his 
companions,  and  the  several  accounts  on  which  they  affirm  Christ  to 
be,  and  to  have  been  called,  the  "  Son  of  God,"  in  his  Comment  on 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  pp.  16-20,  as  also  his  Notes  upon  Yech- 
nerus'  Sermon  on  John  i.  p.  14,  etc.  ;  Anonym.  Respon.  ad  Centum 
Argumenta  Cichorii  Jesuits,  pp.  8-10;  Confessio  Fidei  Christianse, 
edita  nomine  Ecclesiarum  in  Polonia,  pp.  24,  25. 

Their  good  friend  Episcopius  hath  ordered  all  their  causes  of 
Christ's  filiation  under  four  heads : — 

1.  The  first  way  (saith  he)  whereby  Christ  is  in  the  Scripture  xar  \\»^,  called 
the  "  Son  of  God,"  is  in  that  as  man  lie  was  conceived  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  born 
of  a  virgin.     And  I  doubt  not  (saith  he)  but  that  God  is  on  this  ground  called 
eminently  the  "Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 

2.  Jesus  Christ  by  reason  of  that  duty  or  office  which  was  imposed  on  him  by 
his  Father,  that  he  should  be  the  king  of  Israel  promised  by  the  prophets,  is  called 
the  "  Son  of  God." 

3.  Because  he  was  raised  up  by  the  Father  to  an  immortal  life,  and,  as  it  were, 
born  again  from  the  womb  of  the  earth  without.the  help  of  any  mother. 

4.  Because  being  so  raised  from   death,  he   is  made  complete  heir  of  his 
Father's  house,  and  lord  of  all  his  heavenly  goods,  saints,  and  angels.1 

The  like  he  had  written  before,  in  his  Apology  for  the  Remon 
strants,  cap.  ii.  sect.  2. 

Thus  he,  evidently  and  plainly  from  the  persons  before  named. 
But  yet,  after  all  this,  he  asks  another  question, — "  Whether,  all  this 
being  granted,  there  do  not  yet  moreover  remain  a  more  eminent  and 
peculiar  reason  why  Christ  is  called  the  'Son  of  God T'  He  answers 
himself:  "  There  is,— namely,  his  eternal  generation  of  the  Father, 
his  being  God  of  God  from  all  eternity ;"  which  he  pursues  with  sundry 
arguments,  and  yet  in  the  close  disputes  that  the  acknowledgment 
of  this  truth  is  not  fundamental,  or  the  denial  of  it  exclusive  of  sal 
vation!9  So  this  great  reconciler  of  the  Arminian  and  Socinian  re 
ligions,  whose  composition  and  unity  into  an  opposition  to  them 
whom  he  calls  Calvinists  is  the  great  design  of  his  Theological  Insti 
tutions;  and  such  at  this  day  is  the  aim  of  Curcellaeus  and  some 
others.  By  the  way,  I  shall  desire  (before  I  answer  what  he  offers 

1  «  Primus  modus  est,  quia  quatenus  homo  ex  Spiritu  Dei  Sancto  conceptus  est,  et 
ex  virgine  natus  est.  Nee  dubium  mihi  est,  quin  ob  hunc  modum,  Deus  etiam  Ka,r 
\l»X*i  vocetur  Pater  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi.  Secundus  modus  est,  quia  Jesus 
Christus  ratione  muneris  illius,  quod  a  Patre  speciali  mandato  impositum  ei  fuit,  ut 
rex  Israelis  esset,  promissus  ille  per  prophetas,  et  pramsus  ante  secula  Fihus  Dei 
vocatur.  Tertius  modus.est,  quia  a  Patre  ex  mortuis  in  vitam  imrnortalem  suscita- 
tus  et  veluti  ex  utero  terrae,  nulla  mediante  matre,  denuo  genitus  est.  Quartus  modus 
est,'  quia  Jesus  Christus  ex  morte  suscitatus,  haeres  ex  asse  constitute  est  in  domo 
Patris  sui,  ac  proinde  bonorum  omnium  coelestium,  et  Patris  sui  ministrorum  omni 
um  sive  angelorum  dominus."— Episcop.  Instit.  Theolog.  lib.  iv.  cap.  xxxiii.  sect.  2, 
p.  195. 

»  Instit.  Theol.  lib.  iv.  cap.  x*xiii,  sect  2,  p.  335. 


to  confirm  his  assignation  of  this  fourfold  manner  of  filiation  to  Jesus 
Christ)  to  ask  this  learned  gentleman  (or  those  of  his  mind  who  do 
survive  him)  this  one  question,  Seeing  that  Jesus  Christ  was  from 
eternity  the  Son  of  God,  and  is  called  so  after  his  incarnation,  and 
was  on  that  account  in  his  whole  person  the  Son  of  God,  by  their 
own  confessions,  what  tittle  can  he  or  they  find  in  the  Scripture  of  a 
manifold  filiation  of  Jesus  Christ  in  respect  of  God  his  Father?  or 
whether  it  be  not  a  diminution  of  his  glory  to  be  called  the  Son  of 
God  upon  any  lower  account,  as  by  a  new  addition  to  him  who  was 
eternally  his  only-begotten  Son,  by  virtue  of  his  eternal  generation 
of  his  own  substance  ? 

Having  thus  discovered  the  mind  of  them  with  whom  we  have  to 
do,  and  from  whom  our  catechist  hath  borrowed  his  discoveries,  I 
shall  briefly  do  these  two  [three?]  things: — I.  Show  that  the  filia 
tion  of  Christ  consists  in  his  generation  of  the  substance  of  his  Father 
from  eternity,  or  that  he  is  the  Son  of  God  upon  the  account  of  his 
divine  nature  and  subsistence  therein,  antecedent  to  his  incarnation. 
II.  That  it  consists  solely  therein,  and  that  he  was  not,  nor  was 
called,  the  Son  of  God  upon  any  other  account  but  that  mentioned ; 
and  therein  answer  what  by  Mr  B.  or  others  is  objected  to  the  con 
trary.  III.  To  which  I  shall  add  testimonies  and  arguments  for  the 
deity  of  Christ, — whose  opposition  is  the  main  business  of  that  new 
religion  which  Mr  B.  would  catechise  poor  unstable  souls  into, — in 
the  vindication  of  those  excepted  against  by  the  Racovians. 

I.  For  the  demonstration  of  the  first  assertion,  I  shall  insist  on 
some  few  of  the  testimonies  and  arguments  that  might  be  produced 
for  the  same  purpose: — 

1.  He  who  is  the  true,  proper,  only-begotten  Son  of  God,  of  the 
living  God,  he  is  begotten  of  the  essence  of  God  his  Father,  and  is 
his  Son  by  virtue  of  that  generation ;  but  Jesus  Christ  was  thus  the 
only,  true,  proper,  only-begotten  Son  of  God :  and  therefore  he  is  the 
Son  of  God  upon  the  account  before  mentioned.  That  Jesus  Christ 
is  the  Son  of  God  in  the  manner  expressed,  the  Scripture  abundantly 
testifieth :  "  Lo  a  voice  from  heaven,  saying,  This  is  my  beloved  Son, 
in  whom  I  am  well  pleased,"  Matt.  iii.  17;  "Thou  art  the  Christ, 
the  Son  of  the  living  God,"  chap.  xvi.  16,  John  vi.  69. 

Which  [latter]  place  in  Matthew  is  the  rather  remarkable,  because 
it  is  the  confession  of  the  faith  of  the  apostles,  given  in  answer  to  that 
question,  "  Whom  say  ye  that  I  the  Son  of  man  am  ?"  They  an 
swer,  "  The  Son  of  the  living  God;"  and  this  in  opposition  to  them 
who  said  he  was  "  a  prophet,  or  as  one  of  the  prophets,"  as  Mark 
expresses  it,  chap,  vi  15, — that  is,  only  so.  And  the  whole  confes 
sion  manifests  that  they  did  in  it  acknowledge  both  his  office  of  being 
the  Mediator  and  his  divine  nature  or  person  also.  "  Thou  art  the 
Christ."  These  words  comprise  all  the  causes  of  filiation  insisted  on 


by  them  with  whom  we  have  to  do,  and  the  whole  office  of  the  media 
tion  of  Christ;  but  yet  hereunto  they  add,  "  The  Son  of  the  living 
God,"  expressing  his  divine  nature,  and  sonship  on  that  account. 

"  And  we  know  that  the  Son  of  God  is  come,  and  hath  given  us 
an  understanding,  that  we  may  know  him  that  is  true,  and  we  are 
in  him  that  is  true,  even  in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the  true 
God,  and  eternal  life,"  1  John  v.  20.  "  He  spared  not  his  own  Son/' 
Rom.  viii.  32.  "And  the  Word  was  made  flesh,  and  dwelt  among  us, 
and  we  saw  his  glory,  the  glory  as  of  the  only-begotten  of  the  Father/' 
John  i.  ]  4.  "  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time ;  the  only-begotten 
Son,  which  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  he  hath  declared  him," 
verse  18.  "  He  said  also  that  God  was  his  Father,  making  himself 
equal  with  God,"  John  v.  18.  "  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he 
gave  his  only-begotten  Son,"  John  iii.  16.  "  In  this  was  manifested 
the  love  of  God  toward  us,  because  that  God  sent  his  only-begotten 
Son  into  the  world,"  1  John  iv.  9.  "Thou  art  my  Son;  this  day 
have  I  begotten  thee,"  Ps.  ii.  7,  etc.  All  which  places  will  be  after 
ward  vindicated  at  large. 

To  prove  the  inference  laid  down,  I  shall  fix  on  one  or  two  of 
these  instances: — 

1.  He  who  is  "dtog  vi6$,  the  "proper  son"  of  any,  is  begotten  of 
the  substance  of  his  father.  Christ  is  the  proper  Son  of  God,  and 
God  he  called  often  "dtov  nar^a,  his  "  proper  Father."  He  is  properly 
a  father  who  begets  another  of  his  substance;  and  he  is  properly  a 
son  who  is  so  begotten. 

Grotius  confesseth  there  is  an  emphasis  in  the  word  tdng,  whereby 
Christ  is  distinguished  from  that  kind  of  sonship  which  the  Jews 
kid  claim  unto.1  Now,  the  sonship  they  laid  claim  unto  and  en 
joyed,  so  many  of  them  as  were  truly  so,  was  by  adoption ;  for  "  to 
them  pertained  the  adoption/'  Rom.  ix.  4.  Wherein  this  emphasis, 
then,  and  specially  of  Christ's  sonship,  should  consist,  but  in  what 
'we  assert  of  his  natural  sonship,  cannot  be  made  to  appear.  Grotius 
says  it  is  "  because  the  Son  of  God  was  a  name  of  the  Messiah." 
True,  but  on  what  account  ?  Not  that  common  [one]  of  adoption, 
but  this  of  nature,  as  shall  afterward  appear. 

Again ;  he  who  is  properly  a  son  is  distinguished  from  him  who 
is  metaphorically  so  only ;  for  any  thing  whatever  is  metaphorically 
said  to  be  what  it  is  said  to  be  by  a  translation  and  likeness  to  that 
which  is  true.  Now,  if  Christ  be  not  begotten  of  the  essence  of  his 
Father,  he  is  only  a  metaphorical  Son  of  God  by  way  of  allusion, 
and  cannot  be  called  the  proper  Son  of  God,  being  only  one  who 
hath  but  a  similitude  to  a  proper  Son ;  so  that  it  is  a  plain  contra 
diction  that  Christ  should  be  the  proper  Son  of  God,  and  yet  not 
be  begotten  of  his  Father's  essence.  Besides,  in  that  8th  of  the 
1  Grot.  Annot.  Job.  v.  18. 


Romans,  the  apostle  had  before  mentioned  other  sons  of  God,  who 
became  so  by  adoption,  verses  15,  16;  but  when  he  comes  to  speak 
of  Christ  in  opposition  to  them,  he  calls  him  "  God's  own"  or  proper 
"Son," — that  is,  his  natural  Son,  they  being  so  only  by  adoption.  And 
in  the  very  words  themselves,  the  distance  that  is  given  him  by  way 
of  eminence  above  all  other  things  doth  sufficiently  evince  in  what 
sense  he  is  called  the  "proper  Son  of  God:"  "He  that  spared  not  his 
own  Son,  how  shall  he  not  with  him  give  us  all  things?" 

2.  The  only-begotten  Son  of  God  is  his  natural  Son,  begotten  of 
his  essence,  and  there  is  no  other  reason  of  this  appellation.     And 
this  is  farther  clear  from  the  antithesis  of  this  "  only-begotten"  to 
"  adopted."     They  are  adopted  sons  who  are  received  to  be  such  by 
grace  and  favour.     He  is  only-begotten  who  alone  is  begotten  of  the 
substance  of  his  father;  neither  can  any  other  reason  be  assigned 
why  Christ  should  so  constantly,  in  way  of  distinction  from  all  others, 
be  called  the  "  only-begotten  Son  of  God."     It  were  even  ridiculous 
to  say  that  Christ  were  the  only-begotten  Son  of  God  and  his  pro 
per  Son,  if  he  were  his  Son  only  metaphorically  and  improperly. 
That  Christ  is  the  proper,  only-begotten  Son  of  God,  improperly  and 
metaphorically,  is  that  which  is  asserted  to  evade  these  testimonies  of 
Scripture.    Add  hereunto  the  emphatical,  discriminating  significancy 
of  that  voice  from  heaven,  "This  is  he,  that  well-beloved  Son  of  mine ;" 
and  that  testimony  which  in  the  same  manner  Peter  gave  to  this  son- 
ship  of  Christ  in  his  confession,  "Thou  art  the  Son  of  the  living  God ;" 
and  the  ground  of  Christ's  filiation  will  be  yet  more  evident.     Why 
the  Son  of  the  living  God,  unless  as  begotten  of  God  as  the  living  God, 
as  living  things  beget  of  their  own  substance?  But  of  that  place  before. 
Christ,  then,  being  the  true,  proper,  beloved,  only-begotten  Son  of 
the  living  God,  is  his  natural  Son,  of  his  own  substance  and  essence. 

3.  The  same  truth  may  have  farther  evidence  given  unto  it  from 
the  consideration  of  what  kind  of  Son  of  God  Jesus  Christ  is.     He 
who  is  such  a  son  as  is  equal  to  his  father  in  essence  and  proper 
ties  is  a  son  begotten  of  the  essence  of  his  father.     Nothing  can 
give  such  an  equality  but  a  communication  of  essence.     Then,  with 
God,  equality  of  essence  can  alone  give  equality  of  dignity  and  honour ; 
for  between  that  dignity,  power,  and  honour,  which  belong  to  God 
as  God,  and  that  dignity  or  honour  that  is  or  may  be  given  to  any 
other,  there  is  no  proportion,  much  less  equality,  as  shall  be  evi 
denced  at  large  afterward.     And  this  is  the  sole  reason  why  a  son  is 
equal  to  his  father  in  essence  and  properties,  because  he  hath  from 
him  a  communication  of  the  same  essence  whereof  he  is  partaker. 
Now,  that  Christ  is  such  a  Son  as  hath  been  mentioned,  the  Scripture 
abundantly  testifies.     "My  Father,"  saith  Christ,  "  worketh  hitherto, 
and  I  work.   Therefore  the  Jews  sought  the  more  to  kill  him,  because 
he  not  only  had  broken  the  Sabbath,  but  said  also  that  God  was  his 


Father,  making  himself  equal  with  God/'  John  v.  17,  18.  Verse  1 7, 
having  called  God  his  Father  in  the  particular  manner  before  men 
tioned,  and  affirmed  to  himself  an  equal  nature  and  power  for  opera 
tion  with  his  Father,  the  Jews  thence  inferred  that  he  testified  of  him 
self  that  he  was  such  a  Son  of  God  as  that  he  was  equal  with  God. 

The  full  opening  of  this  place  at  large  is  not  my  present  business ; 
the  learned  readers  know  where  to  find  that  done  to  their  hand. 
The  intendment  of  those  words  is  plain  and  evident.  Grotius  ex 
pounds  "Iffov  saurov  r<f>  0£p,  by  "  It  was  lawful  for  him  to  do  what 
was  so  to  God,  and  that  he  Avas  no  more  bound  to  the  Sabbath  than 
he;  which,"  saith  he,  "was  a  gross  calumny."1  So  verse  19,  these 
words  of  our  Saviour,  "  The  Son  can  do  nothing  of  himself  but  what 
he  seeth  the  Father  do"  (wherein  the  emphasis  lies  evidently  in  the 
words  ap'  favrov,  for  the  Son  can  do  nothing  of  himself  but  what 
the  Father  doth,  seeing  he  hath  his  essence,  and  so,  consequently,  will 
and  power,  communicated  to  him  by  the  Father),  he  renders  to  be 
an  allusion  to  and  comparison  between  a  master  and  scholar;3  as  the 
scholar  looks  diligently  to  what  his  master  doth,  and  strives  to  imi 
tate  him,  so  was  it  with  Christ  and  God; — which  exposition  was  the 
very  same  with  that  which  the  Arians  assigned  to  this  place,  as 
Maldonate  upon  the  place  makes  appear.  That  it  was  not  an  equal 
licence  with  the  Father  to  work  on  the  Sabbath,  but  an  equality  of 
essence,  nature,  and  power  between  Father  and  Son,  that  the  Jews 
concluded  from  the  saying  of  Christ,  is  evident  from  this  considera 
tion,  that  there  was  no  strength  in  that  plea  of  our  Saviour  of  work 
ing  on  the  Sabbath-day  because  his  Father  did  so,  without  the 
violation  of  the  Sabbath,  unless  there  had  been  an  equality  between 
the  persons  working.  That  the  Jews  did  herein  calumniate  Christ 
or  accuse  him  falsely,  the  Tritheists  said,  indeed,  as  Zanchius  testi 
fies;3  and  Socinus  is  of  the  same  mind,  whose  interest  Grotius 
chiefly  serves  in  his  Annotations:  but  the  whole  context  and  car 
riage  of  the  business,  with  the  whole  reply  of  our  Saviour,  do  abun 
dantly  manifest  that  the  Jews,  as  to  their  conclusion,  were  in  the 
right,  that  he  made  himself  such  a  Son  of  God  as  was  equal  to  him. 
For  if  in  this  conclusion  they  had  been  mistaken,  and  so  had  ca 
lumniated  Christ,  there  be  two  grand  causes  why  he  should  have  de 
livered  them  from  that  mistake  by  expounding  to  them  what  manner 
of  Son  of  God  he  was: — First,  Because  of  the  just  scandal  they  might 
take  at  what  he  had  spoken,  apprehending  that  to  be  the  sense  of 
his  words  which  they  professed.4  Secondly,  Because  on  that  account 

1  "  Sibi  licere  prsedicans  quicquid  Deo  licet;   neque  magis  Sabbato  se  adstringi. 
Crossa  calumnia." — Grot.  Annot.  Johan.  v.  18. 

2  "  Comparatio  est  sumpta  a  discipulo  qui  magistrum  sibi  prseeuntem  diligenter  in- 
tuetur,  ut  imitari  possit." — Id.  ibid.  v.  19. 

8  Zanchius  de  Tribus  Elolrim,  lib.  v.  cap.  iv.  p.  151. 

•  "Notemus  igitur  Christum  Judaeos  tanquam  in  verborum  suorum  intclligentia 


they  sought  to  slay  him ;  which  if  they  had  done,  he  should  by  his 
death  have  borne  witness  to  that  which  was  not  true.  They  sought 
to  kill  him  because  he  made  himself  such  a  Son  of  God  as  by  that 
sonship  he  was  equal  to  God ;  which  if  it  were  not  so,  there  was  a 
necessity  incumbent  on  him  to  have  cleared  himself  of  that  asper 
sion,  which  yet  he  is  so  far  from,  as  that  in  the  following  verses  he 
farther  confirms  the  same  thing. 

So  he  "  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God,"  Phil.  ii.  6- 
It  is  of  God  the  Father  that  this  is  spoken,  as  the  Father,  as  ap 
pears  in  the  winding  up  of  that  discourse:  Verse  11,  "  That  every 
tongue  should  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God 
the  Father."  And  to  him  is  Christ  equal ;  and  therefore  begotten 
of  his  own  essence. 

Yea,  he  is  such  a  Son  as  is  one  with  his  Father:  "I  and  my  Father 
are  one,"  John  x.  30 ;  which  the  Jews  again  instantly  interpret,  with 
out  the  least  reproof  from  him,  that  he  being  man  did  yet  aver 
himself  to  be  God,  verse  33. 

This  place  also  is  attempted  to  be  taken  out  of  our  hands  by 
Grotius,  though  with  no  better  success  than  the  fonner.  'E/w  xai 
6  UctTtip  sv  effpsv.  "  He  joineth  what  he  had  spoken  with  what  went 
before,"  saith  he :  "  If  they  cannot  be  taken  from  my  Father's 
power,  they  cannot  be  taken  from  mine,  for  I  have  my  power  of  my 
Father ;  so  that  it  is  all  one  to  be  kept  of  me  as  of  my  Father : "  which 
he  intends,  as  I  suppose,  to  illustrate  by  the  example  of  the  power 
that  Joseph  had  under  Pharaoh,  Gen.  xli.,  though  the  verse  he  in 
tend  be  false  printed.1  But  that  it  is  an  unity  of  essence  and  nature, 
as  well  as  an  alike  prevalency  of  power,  that  our  Saviour  intends, 
[is  evident,]  not  only  from  that  apprehension  which  the  Jews  had 
concerning  the  sense  of  those  words,  who  immediately  took  up  stones 
to  kill  him  for  blasphemy  (from  which  apprehension  he  doth  not  at 
all  labour  to  free  them),  but  also  from  the  exposition  of  his  mind  in 
those  words,  which  is  given  us  in  our  Saviour's  following  discourse: 
for,  verse  36,  he  tells  us  this  is  as  much  as  if  he  had  said,  "  I  am 
the  Son  of  God"  (now,  the  unity  between  Father  and  Son  is  in 
essence  and  nature  principally),  and  then  that  "he  doeth  the  works 
of  his  Father,"  the  same  works  that  his  Father  doeth,  verses  37,  38, 
which,  were  he  not  of  the  same  nature  with  him,  he  could  not  do; 
which  he  closes  with  this,  "  That  the  Father  is  in  him,  and  he  in  the 
Father,"  verse  38 :  of  which  words  before  and  afterward. 

hallucinates  minime  reprehendentem  se  naturalem  Dei  Filium  clare  professum  esse. 
Deinde,  quod  isto  modo  colligunt  Christum  se  Deo  sequalem  facere  recte  fecerunt ;  nee 
ideo  a  Christo  refelluntur,  aut  vituperantur  ab  evangelista,  qui  in  re  tanta  nos  errare 
non  fuerit  passus." — Cartwrightus  Har.  Eyan.  inloc. 

"  Connectit  quod  dixerat  cum  superioribua ;  Si  Patris  potestati  eripi  non  pote- 
runt,  nee  meas  poterunt :  nam  mea  potestas  a  Patre  emanat,  et  quidem  ita,  ut  tan- 
tomdem  yaleat  a  me,  aut  a  Patre,  custodiri.  Vid.  Gen.  xli.  25,  27." 


He,  then  (that  we  may  proceed),  who  is  so  the  Son  of  God  as  that 
he  is  one  with  God,  and  therefore  God,  is  the  natural  and  eternal 
Son  of  God ;  but  that  such  a  Son  is  Jesus  Christ  is  thus  plentifully 
testified  unto  in  the  Scripture.  But  because  I  shall  insist  on  sundry 
other  places  to  prove  the  deity  of  Christ,  which  also  all  confirm  the 
truth  under  demonstration,  I  shall  here  pass  them  by.  The  evi 
dences  of  this  truth  from  Scripture  do  so  abound,  that  I  shall  but 
only  mention  some  other  heads  of  arguments  that  may  be  and  are 
commonly  insisted  on  to  this  purpose.  Then, — 

4.  He  who  is  the  Son  of  God,  begotten  of  his  Father  by  an  eter 
nal  communication  of  his  divine  essence,  he  is  the  Son  begotten  of 
the  essence  of  the  Father ;  for  these  terms  are  the  same,  and  of  the 
same  importance.     But  this  is  the  description  of  Christ  as  to  his 
sonship  which  the  Holy  Ghost  gives  us.      Begotten  he  was  of  the 
Father,  according  to  his  own  testimony :  "  Thou  art  my  Son ;  this 
day  have  I  begotten  thee,"  Ps.  ii.  7.     And  he  is  "  the  only -begotten 
Son  of  God,"  John  iii.  18.     And  that  he  is  so  begotten  by  a  com 
munication  of  essence  we  have  his  own  testimony:   "Before  the 
hills,  was  I  brought  forth,"  Prov.  viii.  25.     He  was  begotten  and 
brought  forth  from  eternity.     Anpl  now  he  tells  you  farther,  John 
v.  26,  "  The  Father  hath  given  to  the  Son  to  have  life  in  him 
self."      It  was  by  the  Father's  communication  of  life  unto  him, 
and  his  living  essence  or  substance ;    for  the  life  that  is  in  God 
differs  not  from  his  being.     And  all  this  from  eternity :  "  The  LORD 
possessed  me  in  the  beginning  of  his  way,  before  his  works  of  old. 
I  was  set  up  from  everlasting,  from  the  beginning,  or  ever  the  earth 
was.     When  there  were  no  depths,  I  was  brought  forth  ;  when  there 
were  no  fountains  abounding  with  water.      Before  the  mountains 
were  settled,  before  the  hills  was  I  brought  forth,"  etc.,  Prov.  viii. 
22,  etc.,  to  the  end  of  verse  31.     "  But  thou,  Beth-lehem  Ephratah, 
out  of  thee  shall  he  come  forth  unto  me  that  is  to  be  ruler  in  Israel ; 
whose  goings  forth  have  been  from  of  old,  from  everlasting,"  Micah 
v.  2.     "  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,"  John  i.  1.     "  And  now,  O 
Father,  glorify  thou  me  with  thine  own  self  with  the  glory  which  I 
had  with  thee  before  the  world  was,"  John  xvii.  5.     "  And  again, 
when  he  bringeth  in  the  first-begotten  into  the  world,  he  saith,"  etc., 
Heb.  i.  6,  etc. 

5.  The  farther  description  which  we  have  given  us  of  this  Son 
makes  it  yet  more  evident :  "  He  is  the  brightness  of  his  Father's 
glory,  and  the  express  image  of  his  person,"  Heb.  i.  3.     "  The  image 
of  the  invisible  God,"  Col.  i.  1 5.     That  Christ  is  the  essential  image  of 
his  Father,  and  not  an  accidental  image,  an  image  so  as  no  creature 
is  or  can  be  admitted  into  copartnership  with  him  therein,  shall  be  on 
another  occasion  in  this  treatise  fully  demonstrated.    And  thither  the 
vindication  of  these  texts  from  the  gloss  of  Grotius  is  also  remitted. 


And  this  may  suffice  (without  insisting  upon  what  more  might  be 
added)  for  the  demonstration  of  the  first  assertion,  That  Christ's  filia 
tion  ariseth  from  his  eternal  generation,  or  he  is  the  Son  of  God 
upon  the  account  of  his  being  begotten  of  the  essence  of  his  Father 
from  eternity. 

II.  That  he  is  and  is  termed  the  Son  of  God  solely  on  this  ac 
count,  and  not  upon  the  reasons  mentioned  by  Mr  B.  and  explained 
from  his  companions,  is  with  equal  clearness  evinced.  Nay,  I  see 
not  how  any  thing  may  seem  necessary  for  this  purpose  to  be  added 
to  what  hath  been  spoken  ;  but  for  the  farther  satisfaction  of  them 
who  oppose  themselves,  the  ensuing  considerations,  through  the 
grace  and  patience  of  God,  may  be  of  use : — 

1.  If,  for  the  reasons  and  causes  above  insisted  on  from  the  So- 
cinians,  Christ  be  the  Son  of  God,  then  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God 
"  according  to  the  flesh,"  or  according  to  his  human  nature.  So  he 
must  needs  be,  if  God  be  called  his  Father  because  he  supplied  the 
room  of  a  father  in  his  conception.  But  this  is  directly  contrary  to 
the  scriptures  calling  him  the  Son  of  God  in  respect  of  his  divine 
nature,  in  opposition  to  the  flesh  or  his  human  nature :  "  Concerning 
his  Son  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  which  was  made  of  the  seed  of  David 
according  to  the  flesh;  and  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God  with 
power,"  Rom.  i.  3,  4.  "  Of  whom  as  concerning  the  flesh  Christ 
came,  who  is  over  all,  God  blessed  for  ever,"  Rom.  ix.  5.  The  same 
distinction  and  opposition  is  observed,  2  Cor.  xiii.  4,  1  Pet.  iii.  18. 
If  Jesus  Christ  according  to  the  flesh  be  the  Son  of  David,  in  contra 
distinction  to  the  Son  of  God,  then  doubtless  he  is  not  called  the 
Son  of  God  according  to  the  flesh  ;  but  this  is  the  plain  assertion  of 
the  Scripture  in  the  places  before  named.  Besides,  on  the  same 
reason  that  Christ  is  the  Son  of  man,  on  the  same  he  is  not  the  Son 
of  God;  but  Christ  was  and  was  called  the  Son  of  man  upon  the 
account  of  his  conception  of  the  substance  of  his  mother,  and  par 
ticularly  the  Son  of  David,  and  so  is  not  on  that  account  the  Son  of 

Farther ;  that  place  of  Rom.  i.  3,  4,  passing  not  without  some  ex 
ceptions  as  to  the  sense  insisted  on,  may  be  farther  cleared  and  vin 
dicated.  Jesus  Christ  is  called  the  Son  of  God  :  Verses  1,  3,  "  The 
gospel  of  God  concerning  his  Son  Jesus  Christ."  This  Son  is  farther 
described, — (1.)  By  his  human  nature:  He  was  "  made  of  the  seed  of 
David  according  to  the  flesh."  (2.)  In  respect  of  his  person  or  divine 
nature,  wherein  he  was  the  "  Son  of  God,"  and  that  ev  dwd/tu,  "  in 
power,"  or  "  existing  in  the  power  of  God,"  for  so  Suva/Lit  put  abso 
lutely  doth  often  signify:  as  Rom.  i.  20;  Matt.  vi.  13,  xxvi.  64;  Luke 
iv.  36.  He  had,  or  was  in,  the  omnipotency  of  God  ;  and  was  this 
declared  to  be,  not  in  respect  of  the  flesh,  in  which  he  was  "  made  of 
a  woman,"  but  SKZT&  Hvsvpot,  ayiuff-jvy;  (which  is  opposed  to  xarJs 


septet),  "  according  to,"  or  "  in  respect  of,  his  divine  holy  Spirit;"  as 
is  also  the  intendment  of  that  word  "  The  Spirit/'  in  the  places  above 
mentioned.  Neither  is  it  new  that  the  deity  of  Christ  should  be 
called  Uvtufj,a  ayiuffvvqf  himself  is  called  B^li?  B'7'P>  Dan.  ix.  24, 
Sanctitas  Sanctitatum,  as  here  Spiritus  Sanctitatis.  And  all  this, 
saith  the  apostle,  was  declared  so  to  be,  or  Christ  was  declared  to  be 
thus  the  Son  of  God,  in  respect  of  his  divine,  holy,  spiritual  being, 
which  is  opposed  to  the  flesh,  «|  dvaffrdasug  vtxpuv,  "by  the"  (or  his) 
"  resurrection  from  the  dead,"  whereby  an  eminent  testimony  was 
given  unto  his  deity.  He  was  "  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God " 
thereby,  according  to  the  sense  insisted  on. 

To  weaken  this  interpretation,  Grotius  moves,  as  they  say,  every 
stone,  and  heaves  at  every  Word ;  but  in  vain.  (1.)  '  Opisd'evros,  he  tells 
us,  is  as  much  as  vpoopiffOivroc,  as  by  the  Vulgar  Latin  it  is  translated 
prcedestinatus.  So,  he  pleads,  it  was  interpreted  by  many  of  the 
ancients.  The  places  he  quotes  were  most  of  them  collected  by 
Beza  in  his  annotations  on  the  place,  who  yet  rejects  their  judgment 
therein,  and  cites  others  to  the  contrary.  Luke  xxii.  22,  Actsx.  42, 
xvii.  31,  are  also  urged  by  him  to  evince  the  sense  of  the  word;  in 
each  of  which  places  it  may  be  rendered  "  declared,"  or  "  to  de 
clare,"  and  in  neither  of  them  ought  to  be  by  "predestinated."  Though 
the  word  may  sometimes  signify  so  (which  is  not  proved),  yet  that  it 
here  doth  so  will  not  follow.  'Opo$,  a  "  definition"  (from  whence  that 
word  comes),  declares  what  a  thing  is,  makes  it  known ;  and  6p /'£w 
may  best  be  rendered  "  to  declare,"  Heb.  iv.  7.  So  in  this  place.  T/ 
oZv  sariv  opisdevrog  rov  ©sou;  dsi^dsvras,  diropawdivrog,  says  Chrysostom  on 
the  place.  And  so  doth  the  subject-matter  require,  the  apostle 
treating  of  the  way  whereby  Christ  was  manifested  eminently  to  be 
the  Son  of  God. 

But  the  most  learned  man's  exposition  of  this  place  is  admirable. 
"  Jesus,"  saith  he,  "  is  many  ways  said  to  be  the  '  Son  of  God/  " 
This  is  begged  in  the  beginning,  because  it  will  not  be  proved  in  the 
end.  If  this  be  granted,  it  matters  not  much  what  follows.  "  But 
most  commonly,  or  most  in  a  popular  way,  because  he  was  raised 
unto  a  kingdom  by  God."  Not  once  in  the  whole  book  of  God ! 
Let  him,  or  any  one  for  him,  prove  this  by  any  one  clear  testi 
mony  from  Scripture,  and  take  his  whole  interpretation.  The  Son 
of  God,  as  Mediator,  was  exalted  to  a  kingdom,  and  made  a  Prince 
and  Saviour:  but  that  by  that  exaltation  he  was  made  the  Son 
of  God,  or  was  so  on  that  account,  is  yet  to  be  proved ;  yea,  it  is 
most  false.  He  goes  on:  "  In  that  sense  the  words  of  the  second 
Psalm  were  spoken  of  David,  because  he  was  exalted  to  a  kingdom, 
which  are  applied  to  Christ,  Acts  xiii.  33;  Heb.  i.  5."  But  it  is  not 
proved  that  these  words  do  at  all  belong  to  David,  so  much  as  in  the 
type,  nor  any  of  the  words  from  verse  7  to  the  end  of  the  psalm. 



If  they  are  so  to  be  accommodated,  they  belong  to  the  manifestation t 
not  constitution  of  him ;  and  so  they  are  applied  to  our  Saviour,  when 
they  relate  to  his  resurrection,  as  one  who  was  thereby  manifested 
to  be  the  Son  of  God,  according  as  God  had  spoken  of  him.  But 
now  how  was  Christ  predestinated  to  this  sonship?  "This  kingly 
dignity,  or  the  dignity  of  a  Son,  of  Jesus,  was  predestinated  and  pre 
figured,  when,  leading  a  mortal  life,  he  wrought '  signs  and  wonders ;' 
which  is  the  sense  of  the  words  tv  dwdpei."  The  first  sense  of  the 
word  opiffdsvTog  is  here  insensibly  slipped  from.  Predestinated  and 
prefigured  are  ill  conjoined  as  words  of  a  neighbouring  significancy. 
To  predestinate  is  constantly  ascribed  to  God  as  an  act  of  his  fore- 
appointing  things  to  their  end ;  neither  can  this  learned  man  give 
one  instance  from  the  Scripture  of  any  other  signification  of  the 
word.  And  how  comes  now  opieQwros  to  be  "prefigured"?  Is  there  the 
least  colour  for  such  a  sense  ?  "  Predestinated  to  be  the  Son  of 
God  with  power  ;"  that  is,  "  The  signs  he  wrought  prefigured  that 
he  should  be  exalted  to  a  kingdom."  He  was  by  them  in  a  good 
towardliness  for  it.  It  is  true,;,  and  sometimes  5uva^/j,  being  in 
construction  with  some  transitive  verb,  doth  signify  "great"  or  "mar 
vellous  works;"  but  that  iv  bwd^n,  spoken  of  one  declared  to  be  so, 
hath  the  same  signification,  is  not  proved.  He  adds,  "  These  signs 
Jesus  did  by  '  the  Spirit  of  holiness;'  that  is,  that  divine  efficacy 
wherewith  he  was  sanctified  from  the  beginning  of  his  conception, 
Luke  i.  35 ;  Mark  ii  8 ;  John  ix.  36."  In  the  two  latter  places 
there  is  not  one  word  to  the  purpose  in  hand ;  perhaps  he  intended 
some  other,  and  these  are  false  printed.  The  first  shall  be  afterward 
considered  ;  how  it  belongs  to  what  is  here  asserted  I  understand 
not/  That  Christ  wrought  miracles  by  the  "  efficacy  of  the  grace  of 
the  Spirit,"  with  which  he  was  sanctified,  is  ridiculous.  If  by  the 
"  Spirit"  is  understood  his  "spiritual,  divine  nature,"  this  whole  inter 
pretation  falls  to  the  ground.  To  make  out  the  sense  of  the  words, 
he  proceeds,  "  Jesus  therefore  is  showed  to  be  noble  on  the  mother's 
side,  as  coming  of  an  earthly  king ;  but  more  noble  on  his  Father's 
part,  being  made  a  heavenly  king  of  God,  after  his  resurrection, 
Heb.  v.  9 ;  Acts  ii.  30,  xxvi.  23."  *  And  thus  is  this  most  evident 
testimony  of  the  deity  of  Christ  eluded,  or  endeavoured  to  be  so. 

1  "  Jesus  Filius  Dei  multis  modis  dicitur ;  maxime  populariter,  ideo  quod  in  regnum 
a  Deo  evectus  est ;  quo  sensu  verba  Psalmi  secundi,  de  Davide  dicta,  cum  ad  regnum 
pervenit,  Christo  aptantur,  Act.  xiii.  33,  et  ad  Hebraeos  i.  5,  et  T.  5.  Haac  autem  Filii 
sive  regia  dignitas  Jesu  praedestinabatur  et  praefigurabatur  turn  cum  mortalem  agens 
vitam  magna  ilia  signa  et  prodigia  ederet,  quse  liniapiuv  voce  denotantur,  ssepe  et  singu- 
lariter  lu*a.p.tus,  ut  Marci  vi.  5,  ix.  39 ;  Luc.  iv.  36,  v.  17,  vi.  19,  viii.  46,  ix.  1 ;  Act. 
iii.  12,  iv.  33,  vi.  8,  x.  38.  Hsec  signa  edebat  Jesus,  per  Spiritum  ilium  sanctitatis,  id 
est,  vim  divinam,  per  quam  ab  initio  conceptionis  sanctificatus  fuerat,  Luc.  i.  35  ;  Marci 
ii.  8 ;  Job.,  ix.  36.  Ostenditur  ergo  Jesus  nobilis  ex  materna  parte,  utpote  ex  Rege  ter- 
reno  ortus ;  sed  nobilior  ex  Paterna  parte,  quippe  a  Deo  factus  rex  coelestis  post  resur- 
rcctionem,  Heb.  v.  9;  Act.  ii,  30,  xxvi.  23."— Grot.  Annot.  in  Horn.  i.  3,  4. 


Christ  on  the  mother's  side  was  the  "  son  of  David/' — that  is,  "  ac 
cording  to  the  flesh," — of  the  same  nature  with  her  and  him.  On 
the  Father's  side  he  was  the  "  Son  of  God,"  of  the  same  nature  with 
him.  That  God  was  his  Father,  and  he  the  Son  of  God,  because 
"  after  his  resurrection  he  was  made  a  heavenly  king,"  is  a  hellish 
figment,  neither  is  there  any  one  word  or  tittle  in  the  texts  cited  to 
prove  it ;  so  that  it  is  a  marvel  to  what  end  they  are  mentioned,  one 
of  them  expressly  affirming  that  he  was  the  Son  of  God  before  his 
resurrection,  Heb.  v.  8,  9. 

2.  He  who  was  actually  the  Son  of  God  before  his  conception, 
nativity,  endowment  with  power  or  exaltation,  is  not  the  Son  of  God 
on  these  accounts,  but  on  that  only  which  is  antecedent  to  them. 
Now,  by  virtue  of  all  the  arguments  and  testimonies  before  cited,  as 
also  of  all  those  that  shall  be  produced  for  the  proof  and  evincing 
of  the  eternal  deity  of  the  Son  of  God,  the  proposition  is  unmove- 
ably  established,  and  the  inference  evidently  follows  thereupon. 

But  yet  the  proposition,  as  laid  down,  may  admit  of  farther  con 
firmation  at  present.  It  is,  then,  testified  to,  Prov.  xxx.  4,  "  What  is 
his  name,  and  what  is  his  Son's  name,  if  thou  canst  tell?"  He  was, 
therefore,  the  Son  of  God,  and  he  was  incomprehensible,  even  then 
before  his  incarnation.  Ps.  ii.  7,  "  Thou  art  my  Son ;  this  day  have  I 
begotten  thee."  Isa.  ix.  6,  "  Unto  us  a  child  is  born,  unto  us  a  son  is 
given:  and  the  government  shall  be  upon  his  shoulder:  and  his  name 
shall  be  called  Wonderful,  Counsellor,  The  mighty  God,  The  everlast 
ing  Father,  The  Prince  of  Peace."  He  is  a  Son,  as  he  is  the  everlast 
ing  Father.  And  to  this  head  of  testimonies  belongs  what  we  urged 
before  from  Prov.  viii.  22,  eta  "  He  is  the  image  of  the  invisible 
God,  the  first-born  of  every  creature,"  CoLi.  15,  which  surely  as  to  his 
incarnation  he  was  not.  "  Before  Abraham  was,  I  am,"  John  viii.  58. 
But  of  these  places,  in  the  following  chapter,  I  shall  speak  at  large. 

3.  Christ  was  so  the  Son  of  God  that  he  that  was  made  like  him 
was  to  be  without  father,  mother,  or  genealogy:  Heb.  vii.  3,  "With 
out  father,  without  mother,  without  descent,  having  neither  begin 
ning  of  days  nor  end  of  life ;  but  made  like  unto  the  Son  of  God." 
But  now  Christ,  in  respect  of  his  conception  and  nativity,  had  a 
mother  (and  one,  they  say,  that  supplied  the  room  of  father),  had  a 
genealogy  that  is  upon  record,  and  beginning  of  life,  etc.;  so  that 
upon  these  accounts  he  was  not  the  Son  of  God,  but  on  that  wherein 
he  had  none  of  all  these  things,  in  the  want  whereof  Melchisedec  was 
made  like  to  him.     I  shall  only  add, — 

4.  That  which  only  manifests  the  filiation  of  Christ  is  not  the 
cause  of  it.     The  cause  of  a  thing  is  that  which  gives  it  its  being. 
The  manifestation  of  it  is  only  that  which  declares  it  to  be  so.     That 
all  things  insisted  on  as  the  causes  of  Christ's  filiation,  by  them  with 
whom  we  have  to  do,  did  only  declare  and  manifest  him  so  to  be 

VOL.  XIL  13 


who  was  the  Son  of  God,  the  Scripture  witnesseth :  "  The  Holy  Ghost 
shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the  Highest  shall  overshadow 
thee ;  therefore  also  that  holy  thing  which  shall  be  born  of  thee  shall 
be  called  the  Son  of  God,"  Luke  i.  35.  He  shall  be  called  so, — there 
by  declared  to  be  so:  "  And  great  was  the  mystery  of  godliness:  God 
was  manifested  in  the  flesh,  justified  in  the  Spirit,  seen  of  angels, 
preached  unto  the  Gentiles,  believed  on  in  the  world,  received  up 
into  glory,"  1  Tim.  iii  16.  All  the  causes  of  Christ's  filiation  as 
signed  by  our  adversaries  are  evidently  placed  as  manifestations  of 
God  in  him,  or  of  his  being  the  Son  of  God :  "  Declared  to  be  the  Sou 
of  God  with  power,  according  to  the  Spirit  of  holiness,  by  the  resur 
rection  from  the  dead,"  Rom.  i.  3,  4.  The  absurdity  of  assigning  dis 
tinct  and  so  far  different  causes  of  the  same  effect  of  filiation,  whether 
you  make  them  total  or  partial,  need  not  be  insisted  on. 

Farther  (to  add  one  consideration  more),  says  Socinus,  "  Christ  was 
the  Son  of  God  upon  the  account  of  his  holiness  and  righteousness, 
and  therein  his  likeness  to  God."  Now,  this  he  had  not,  according  to 
his  principles,  in  his  infancy.  He  proves  Adam  not  to  have  been 
righteous  in  the  state  of  innocency,  because  he  had  yielded  actual 
obedience  to  no  law:  no  more  had  Christ  done  in  his  infancy. 
Therefore, — (1.)  He  was  not  the  Son  of  God  upon  the  account  of  his 
nativity;  nor  (2.)  did  he  become  the  Son  of  God  any  otherwise  than 
we  do,  namely,  by  hearing  the  word,  learning  the  mind,  and  doing 
the  will  of  God.  (3.)  God  did  not  give  his  only- begotten  Sou  for 
us,  but  gave  the  son  of  Mary,  that  he  might  (by  all  that  which  we 
supposed  he  had  done  for  us)  be  made  the  Son  of  God.  And  so 
(4.)  this  sending  of  Christ  doth  not  so  much  commend  the  love  of 
God  to  us  as  to  him,  that  he  sent. him  to  die  and  rise  that  he  might 
be  made  God  and  the  Son  of  God.  (5.)  Neither  can  any  eximious 
love  of  Christ  to  us  be  seen  in  what  he  did  and  suffered ;  for  had  he 
not  done  and  suffered  what  he  did,  he  had  not  been  the  Son  of  God. 
(6.)  And  also,  if  Christ  be,  on  the  account  of  his  excellencies,  graces, 
and  gifts,  the  Son  of  God  (which  is  one  way  of  his  filiation  insisted 
on), — and  to  be  God  and  the  Son  of  God  is,  as  they  say,  all  one,  and 
as  it  is  indeed, — then  all  who  are  renewed  into  the  image  of  God,  and 
are  thereby  the  sons  of  God  (as  are  all  believers),  are  gods  also! 

And  this  that  hath  been  spoken  may  suffice  for  the  confirmation 
of  the  second  assertion  laid  down  at  the  entrance  of  this  discourse. 

To  the  farther  confirmation  of  this  assertion  two  things  are  to  be 
annexed: — First,  The  eversion  of  that  fancy  of  Episcopius  before 
mentioned,  and  the  rest  of  the  Socinianizing  Arminians,  that  Christ 
is  called  the  "  Son  of  God,"  both  on  the  account  of  his  eternal  son- 
ship  and  also  of  those  other  particulars  mentioned  from  him  abova 
Secondly,  To  consider  the  texts  of  Scripture  produced  by  Mr  B.  for 
the  confirmation  of  his  insinuation,  that  Christ  is  not  called  the  "Son 


of  God"  because  of  his  eternal  generation  of  the  essence  of  his  Father. 
The  first  may  easily  be  evinced  by  the  ensuing  arguments : — 

1.  The  question  formerly  proposed  to  Episcopius  may  be  renewed; 
for  if  Christ  be  the  Son  of  God  partly  upon  the  account  of  his  eter 
nal  generation,  and  so  he  is  God's  proper  and  natural  Son,  and 
partly  upon  the  other  accounts  mentioned,  then, — 

(1.)  He  is  partly  God's  natural  Son,  and  partly  his  adopted  Son ; 
partly  his  eternal  Son,  partly  a  temporary  Son ;  partly  a  begotten 
Son,  partly  a  made  Son ; — of  which  distinctions,  in  reference  to  Christ, 
,there  is  not  one  iota  in  the  whole  book  of  God. 

(2.)  He  is  made  the  Son  of  God  by  that  which  only  manifests 
him  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  as  the  things  mentioned  do. 

(3.)  Christ  is  equivocally  only,  and  not  univocally,  called  the  Son 
of  God ;  for  that  which  hath  various  and  diverse  causes  of  its  being 
so  is  so  equivocally.  If  the  filiation  of  Christ  hath  such  equivocal 
causes  as  eternal  generation,  actual  incarnation,  and  exaltation,  he 
hath  an  equivocal  filiation ;  which  whether  it  be  consistent  with  the 
Scripture,  which  calls  him  the  proper  Son  of  God,  needs  no  great 
pains  to  determine. 

2.  The  Scripture  never  conjoins  these  causes  of  Christ's  filiation 
as  causes  in  and  of  the  same  kind,  but  expressly  makes  the  one  the 
sole  constituting,  and  the  rest  causes  manifesting  only,  as  hath  been 
declared.     And,  to  shut  up  this  discourse,  if  Christ  be  the  Son  of 
man  only  because  he  was  conceived  of  the  substance  of  his  mother, 
he  is  the  Son  of  God  only  upon  the  account  of  his  being  begotten  of 
the  substance  of  his  Father. 

Secondly,  There  remaineth  only  the  consideration  of  those  texts 
of  Scripture  which  Mr  B.  produceth  to  insinuate  the  filiation  of 
Christ  to  depend  on  other  causes,  and  not  on  his  eternal  generation 
of  the  essence  of  his  Father;  which,  on  the  principles  laid  down  and 
proved,  will  receive  a  quick  and  speedy  despatch. 

] .  The  first  place  named  by  him,  and  universally  insisted  on  by 
the  whole  tribe,  is  Luke  i.  30-35.  It  is  the  last  verse  only  that  I 
suppose  weight  is  laid  upon.  Though  Mr  B.  names  the  others,  his 
masters  never  do  so.  That  of  verses  31,  32  seems,  to  deserve  our 
notice  in  Mr  B/s  judgment,  who  changes  the  character  of  the  words 
of  it,  for  their  significancy  to  his  purpose.  The  words  are,  "  Thou 
shalt  conceive  in  thy  womb,  and  bring  forth  a  son,  and  shalt  call  his 
name  Jesus.  He  shall  be  great,  and  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  the 
Highest."  What  Mr  B.  supposes  may  be  proved  from  hence,  at 
least  how  he  would  prove  what  he  aims  at,  I  know  not.  That  Jesus 
Christ,  who  was  born  of  the  Virgin,  was  a  son  of  the  Highest  we 
contend.  On  what  account  he  was  so  the  place  mentioneth  not;  but 
the  reason  of  it  is  plentifully  manifested  in  other  places,  as  hath  been 


The  words  of  verse  35  are  more  generally  managed  by  them: 
"The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the 
Highest  shall  overshadow  thee :  therefore  also  that  holy  thing  which 
shall  be  born  of  thee  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God."  But  neither 
do  these  particles,  8ib  xai,  render  a  reason  of  Christ's  filiation,  nor 
are  [they]  a  note  of  the  consequent,  but  only  of  an  inference  or  conse 
quence  that  ensues  from  what  he  spake  before :  "  It  being  so  as  I 
have  spoken,  even  that  holy  thing  that  shall  be  born  of  thee  shall 
be  called  the  Son  of  God."  There  is  weight  also  in  that  expression, 
"\yiov  rb  ytwtofjMvov,  "  That  holy  thing  that  shall  be  born  of  thee/' 
" \yiov  is  not  spoken  in  the  concrete,  or  as  an  adjective,  but  substan- 
tively,  and  points  out  the  natural  essence  of  Christ,  whence  he  was 
"  that  holy  thing."  Besides,  if  this  be  the  cause  of  Christ's  filiation 
which  is  assigned,  it  must  be  demonstrated  that  Christ  was  on  that 
account  called  the  "  Son  of  God,"  for  so  hath  it  been  said  that  he 
should  be ;  but  there  is  not  any  thing  in  the  New  Testament  to  give 
light  that  ever  Christ  was  on  this  account  called  the  "  Son  of  God," 
nor  can  the  adversaries  produce  any  such  instance. 

2.  It  is  evident  that  the  angel  in  these  words  acquaints  the  blessed 
Virgin  that  in  and  by  her  conception  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  should 
be  accomplished,  which  you  have,  chap,  vii  14,  "Behold,  a  virgin 
shall  conceive,  an^l  bear  a  son,  and  shall  call  his  name  Immanuel," 
as  the  express  wprds  of  Luke  declare,  being  the  same  with  those 
of  the  prophecy,  "  Behold,  thou  shalt  conceive  in  thy  womb,  and 
bring  forth  a  son,  and  shalt  call,"  etc.,  verses  31,  32.     And  Matt. 
i.  20,  21,  this  very  thing  being  related,  it  is  said  expressly  to  be  done 
according  to  what  was  foretold  by  the  prophet,  verses  22,  23,  repeating 
the  very  words  of  the  Holy  Ghost  by  Isaiah,  which  are  mentioned 
before.      Now  Isaiah  foretelleth  two  things  :—-(!.)  That  a  virgin 
should  conceive  ;  (2.)  That  he  that  was  so  conceived  should  be  Im 
manuel,  God  with  us;  or  the  Son  of  God,  as  Luke  here  expresses 
it     And  this  is  that  which  the  angel  here  acquaints  the  blessed 
Virgin  withal  upon  her  inquiry,  verse  34,  even  that,  according  to  the 
prediction  of  Isaiah,  she  should  conceive  and  bear  a  son,  though  a 
virgin,  and  that  that  son  of  net's  should  be  called  the  "  Son  of  God." 

By  the  way,  Grotius'  dealing  with  this  text,  both  in  his  annota 
tions  on  Isa.  vii.,  as  also  in  his  large  discourse  on  Matt.  L  21-23,  is 
intolerable  and  full  of  offence  to  all  that  seriously  weigh  it.  It  is 
too  large  here  to  be  insisted  on.  His  main  design  is  to  prove  that 
this  is  not  spoken  directly  of  Christ,  but  only  applied  to  him  by  a 
certain  general  accommodation.  God  may  give  time  and  leisure 
farther  to  lay  open  the  heap  of  abominations  which  are  couched  in 
those  learned  annotations  throughout.  Which  also  appears, — 

3.  From  the  emphaticalness  of  the  expression  3/i  xal,  "  even  also." 
"  That  holy  thing  which  is  to  be  born  of  thee,  even  that  shall  be  called 


the  Son  of  God,  and  not  only  that  eternal  Word  that  is  to  be  incarnate. 
That  ay/ov  rb  yiwuptvov,  being  in  itself  anvdararov,  shall  be  called  the 
Son  of  God."  "  Shall  be  called  so/'  that  is,  appear  to  be  so,  and  be 
declared  to  be  so  with  power.  It  is  evident,  then,  that  the  cause  of 
Christ's  filiation  is  not  here  insisted  on,  but  the  consequence  of  the 
Virgin's  conception  declared ;  that  which  was  "  born  of  her  should 
be  called  the  Son  of  God." 

And  this  Socinus  is  so  sensible  of  that  he  dares  not  say  that  Christ 
was  completely  the  Son  of  God  upon  his  conception  and  nativity; 
which,  if  the  cause  of  his  filiation  were  here  expressed,  he  must  be. 
"  It  is  manifest,"  saith  he,  "  that  Christ  before  his  resurrection  was 
not  fully  and  completely  the  Son  of  God,  being  not  like  God  before 
in  immortality  and  absolute  rule."1 

Mr  B.'s  next  place,  whereby  the  sonship  of  Christ  is  placed  on 
another  account,  as  he  supposes,  is  John  x.  36,  "  Say  ye  of  him,  whom 
the  Father  hath  sanctified,  and  sent  into  the  world,  Thou  blasphem- 
est ;  because  I  said,  I  am  the  Son  of  God  ?  " 

That  this  scripture  is  called  to  remembrance  not  at  all  to  Mr  B.'s 
advantage  will  speedily  appear ;  for, — 

1.  Here  is  not  in  the  words  the  least  mention  whence,  or  for  what 
cause  it  is,  that  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,  but  only  that  he  is  so,  he 
being  expressed  and  spoken  of  under  that  description  which  is  used 
of  him  twenty  times  in  that  Gospel,  "  He  who  is  sent  of  the  Father." 
This  is  all  that  is  in  this  place  asserted,  that  he  whom  the  Father 
sanctified  and  sent  into  the  world  counted  it  no  robbery  to  be  equal 
with  him,  nor  did  blaspheme  in  calling  himself  his  Son. 

2.  It  is  evident  that  Christ  in  these  words  asserts  himself  to  be 
such  a  Son  of  God  as  the  Jews  charged  him  with  blasphemy  for 
affirming  of  himself  that  he  was ;  for  he  justifies  himself  against 
their  accusation,  not  denying  in  the  least  that  they  rightly  appre 
hended  and  understood  him,  but  maintaining  what  he  had  spoken 
to  be  most  true.     Now,  this  was  that  which  the  Jews  charged  him 
withal,  verse  33,  "That  he,  being  a  man,  blasphemed  in  making  him 
self  God ; "  for  so  they  understood  him,  that  in  asserting  his  sonship 
he  asserted  also  his  deity.      This  Christ  makes  good,  namely,  that 
he  is  such  a  Son  of  God  as  is  God  also ;  yea,  he  makes  good  what 
he  had  said,  verse  30,  which  was  the  foundation  of  all  the  following 
discourse  about  his  blasphemy,  "  I  and  my  Father  are  one."     So 

3.  An  invincible  argument  for  the  sonship  of  Christ,  to  be  placed 
only  upon  the  account  of  his  eternal  generation,  ariseth  from  this  very 
place  that  was  produced  to  oppose  it !     He  who  is  the  Son  of  God 

1  "  Const  at  igitur  (ut  ad  propositum  revert  amur),  Christum  ante  resurrectionem  Dei 
Filium  plene  et  perfecte  non  fuisse :  cum  illi  et  immortalitatis  et  absoluti  dominii 
cum  Deo  similitude  deesset." — Socin.  Respon.  ad  Weikum,  p.  225. 


because  he  is  "  one  with  the  Father,"  and  God  equal  to  him,  is  the 
Son  of  God  upon  the  account  of  his  eternal  relation  to  the  Father: 
but  that  such  was  the  condition  of  Jesus  Christ,  himself  here  bears 
witness  to  the  Jews,  although  they  are  ready  to  stone  him  for  it ; 
and  of  his  not  blaspheming  in  this  assertion  he  convinces  his  adver 
saries  by  an  argument  a  minori,  verses  34-36. 

A  brief  analysis  of  this  place  will  give  evidence  to  this  interpreta 
tion  of  the  words.  Our  Saviour  Christ  having  given  the  reason  why 
the  Jews  believed  not  on  him,  namely,  "  because  they  were  not  of 
his  sheep,"  verse  26,  describes  thereupon  both  the  nature  of  those 
sheep  of  his,  verse  27,  and  their  condition  of  safety,  verse  28.  This 
he  farther  confirms  from  the  consideration  of  his  Father's  greatness 
and  power,  which  is  amplified  by  the  comparison  of  it  with  others, 
who  are  all  less  than  he,  verse  29 ;  as  also  from  his  own  power  and 
will,  which  appears  to  be  sufficient  for  that  end  and  purpose  from 
his  essential  unity  with  his  Father,  verse  30.  The  effect  of  this  dis 
course  of  Christ  by  accident  is  the  Jews  taking  up  of  stones,  which 
is  amplified  by  this,  that  it  was  the  second  time  they  did  so,  and  that 
to  this  purpose,  that  they  might  stone  him,  verse  31.  Their  folly 
and  madness  herein  Christ  disproves  with  an  argument  ab  absurdo, 
telling  them  that  it  must  be  for  some  good  work  that  they  stoned 
him,  for  evil  had  he  done  none,  verse  32.  This  the  Jews  attempt 
to  disprove  by  a  new  argument  a  disparatis,  telling  him  that  it  was 
"  not  for  a  good  work,  but  for  blasphemy,"  that  he  "made  himself  to 
be  God,"  whom  they  would  prove  to  be  but  a  man,  verse  33.  This 
pretence  of  blasphemy  Christ  disproves,  as  I  said  before,  by  an  argu 
ment  a  minori,  verses  34-36,  and  with  another  from  the  effects  or 
the  works  which  he  did,  which  sufficiently  proved  him  to  be  God, 
verses  37,  38,  still  maintaining  what  he  said  and  what  they  thought 
to  be  blasphemy;  so  that  they  attempt  again  to  kill  him,  verse  39. 
It  is  evident,  then,  that  he  still  maintained  what  they  charged  him 

4.  And  this  answers  that  expression  which  is  so  frequent  in  the 
Scripture,  of  God's  sending  his  Son  into  the  world,  and  that  he 
came  down  from  heaven,  and  came  into  the  world,  Gal.  iv.  4, 
John  iii.  13  ;  all  evincing  his  being  the  Son  of  God  antecedently  to 
that  mission  or  sanctification  whereby  in  the  world  he  was  declared 
so  to  be.  Otherwise,  the  Son  of  God  was  not  sent,  but  one  to  be 
his  Son. 

Acts  xiii.  32,  33,  is  also  insisted  on:  "We  declare  unto  you  glad 
tidings,  how  that  the  promise  which  was  made  unto  the  fathers, 
God  hath  fulfilled  the  same  unto  us  their  children,  in  that  he  hath 
raised  up  Jesus  again ;  as  it  is  also  written  in  the  second  psalm, 
Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee." 

1.  He  that  can  see  in  this  text  a  cause  assumed  of  the  filiation  of 


Christ  that  should  relate  to  the  resurrection,  I  confess  is  sharper 
sighted  than  I.  This  I  know,  that  if  Christ  were  made  the  Son  of 
God  by  his  resurrection  from  the  dead,  he  was  not  the  Son  of  God 
who  died,  for  that  preceded  this  his  making  to  be  the  Son  of  God. 
But  that  God  gave  his  only-begotten  Son  to  die,  that  he  spared 
not  his  only  Son,  but  gave  him  up  to  death,  I  think  is  clear  in 
Scripture,  if  any  thing  be  so. 

2.  Paul  seems  to  interpret  this  place  to  me,  when  he  informs  us 
that  "Christ  was  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God  with  power,  by  the 
resurrection  from  the  dead,"  Rom.  i.  4.     Not  that  he  was  made  so, 
but  he  was  "declared"  or  made  known  to  be  so,  when,  being  "cruci 
fied  through  weakness,  he  lived  by  the  power  of  God,"  2  Cor.  xiii.  4 ; 
which  power  also  was  his  own,  John  x.  18. 

According  as  was  before  intimated,  Grotius  interprets  these  words, 
"  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have ,  I  begotten  thee,"  "  I  (have  made 
thee  a  king ;  which,"  he  says,  "  was  fulfilled  in  that,  when  all  power 
was  given  him  in  heaven  and  earth,  Matt,  xxviii.  18  ;  as  Justin  in 
his  colloquy  with  Trypho :  lore  yiviffiv  aiiT-ou  "Ktyuv  ytvsG&at,  t%6rou  n 
yvuffig  alrou  ipsXXs  ysvssSat."1  (1.)  But  then  he  was  the  Son  of  God 
before  his  resurrection,  for  he  was  the  Son  of  God  by  his  being  be 
gotten  of  him :  which  as  it  is  false,  so  contrary  to  his  own  gloss  on 
Luke  i.  35.  (2.)  Christ  was  a  king  before  his  resurrection,  and  owned 
himself  so  to  be,  as  hath  been  showed.  (3.)  Justin's  words  are  suited 
to  our  exposition  of  this  place.  He  was  said  to  be  then  begotten, 
because  then  he  was  made  known  to  be  so  the  Son  of  God.  (4.)  That 
these  words  are  not  applied  to  Christ,  in  their  first  sense,  in  respect  of 
his  resurrection,  [is  evident]  from  the  pre-eminence  assigned  unto  him 
above  angels  by  virtue  of  this  expression,  Heb.  i.  5,  which  he  had 
before  his  death,  chap.  i.  6.  Nor,  (5.)  Are  the  words  here  used  to 
prove  the  resurrection,  which  is  done  in  the  verses  following,  out  of 
Isaiah  and  another  psalm,  "  And  as  concerning  that  he  raised  him  up 
from  the  dead,"  etc.,  Acts  xiii.  34,  35.  But  then, — 

3.  It  is  not  an  interpretation  of  the  meaning  of  that  passage  in 
the  psalm  which  Paul,  Acts  xiii.,  insists  on,  but  the  proving  that 
Christ  was  the  Son  of  God,  as  in  that  psalm  he  was  called,  by  his 
resurrection  from  the  dead ;  which  was  the  great  manifesting  cause 
of  his  deity  in  the  world. 

What  Mr  B.  intends  by  the  next  place  mentioned  by  him  I  know 
not.  It  is  Rev.  i.  5,  "  And  from  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  the  faithful 
witness,  and  the  first  begotten  of  the  dead."  That  Christ  was  the 
first  who  was  raised  from  the  dead  to  a  blessed  and  glorious  immor 
tality,  and  is  thence  called  the  first-begotten  of  them,  or  from  the 
dead,  and  that  all  that  rise  to  such  an  immortality  rise  after  him, 

1  "  0  fill  mi,  hodie  te  genui,  id  est,  Regem  te  fed.  Hoc  in  Christo  impletum,  cum  «»' 
data  omnis  potestas  in  coelo  ei  in  terra,  Matt,  xxviii.  18,"  etc. — Grot,  in  loc. 


and  by  virtue  of  his  resurrection,  is  most  certain  and  granted ;  but 
that  from  thence  he  is  that  only-begotten  Son  of  God,  though 
thereby  he  was  only  "  declared"  so  to  be,  there  is  not  the  least  tittle 
in  the  text  giving  occasion  to  such  an  apprehension. 

And  the  same  also  is  affirmed  of  the  following  place  of  Col.  i.  18, 
where  the  same  words  are  used  again:  "He  is  the  head  of  the  church, 
who  is  the  beginning,  vpur6roxo$  sx  TUV  vsxpuv, — the  first-born  of  the 
dead."  Only  I  shall  desire  our  catechist  to  look  at  his  leisure  a  little 
higher  into  the  chapter,  where  he  will  find  him  called  also  vpuToroxos 
KOLCIIS  xriffsus,  "  the  first-born  of  all  the  creation;"  so  that  he  must 
surely  be  vrpuroToxos  before  his  resurrection.  Nay,  he  is  so  the  first 
born  of  every  creature  as  to  be  none  of  them;1  for  by  him  they  were 
all  created,  verse  16.  He  who  is  so  before  all  creatures  as  to  be 
none  of  them,  but  that  they  are  all  created  by  him,  is  "  God  blessed 
for  ever:"  which  when  our  catechist  disproves,  he  shall  have  me  for 
one  of  his  disciples. 

Of  the  same  kind  is  that  which  Mr  B.  next  urgeth  from  Heb.  i. 
4,  5,  only  it  hath  this  farther  disadvantage,  that  both  the  verses  going 
immediately  before  and  that  immediately  following  after  do  inevit 
ably  evince  that  the  constitutive  cause  of  the  sonship  of  Jesus  Christ, 
d,  priori,  is  in  his  participation  of  the  divine  nature,  and  that  it  is 
only  manifested  by  any  ensuing  consideration.  Verses  2,  3,  the 
Holy  Ghost  tells  us  that  "  by  him  God  made  the  worlds,  who  is  the 
brightness  of  his  glory,  and  the  express  image  of  his  person;"  and 
this  as  the  Son  of  God,  antecedent  to  any  exaltation  as  mediator. 
And  verse  6,  "He  bringeth  in  the  first-begotten  into  the  world,  and 
saith,  Let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship  him/'  He  is  the  first-be 
gotten  before  his  bringing  into  the  world ;  and  that  this  is  proved  by 
the  latter  clause  of  the  verse  shall  be  afterward  demonstrated.  Be 
tween  both  these,  much  is  not  like  to  be  spoken  against  the  eternal 
sonship  of  Christ.  Nor  is  the  apostle  only  declaring  his  pre-emi 
nence  above  the  angels  upon  the  account  of  that  name  of  his,  the  "Son 
of  God,"  which  he  is  called  upon  record  in  the  Old  Testament,  but 
the  causes  also  of  that  appellation  he  had  before  declared. 

The  last  place  urged  to  this  purpose  is  of  the  same  import.  It  is 
Heb.  v.  5,  "  So  also  Christ  glorified  not  himself  to  be  made  an  high 
priest;  but  he  that  said  unto  him,  Thou  art  my  Son,  to-day  have 
I  begotten  thee."  When  Mr  B.  proves  any  thing  more  towards  his 
purpose  from  this  place,  but  only  that  Christ  did  not  of  his  own  ac- 

1  So  that  xfOTorfxot  yeiifftt;  uriffiia;  is,  I  <ri%h};  <jrpl  vfiifns  Kritrius,  qui  genitus  est  prior 
omni  creatura,  vel  ante  omnem  creaturam,  for  so  itfuras  sometimes  signifies  compara 
tively.  Arist.  Ayibus.  484,  vefurot  tutfiiov,  id  est,  xf'orifoi,  Johan.  i.  15;  <jt(uT<n  pou  >?»,  that 
is,  vrporiftf  and  1  Johan.  iv.  19,  vpu-rm  Yiya.^n<rtv.  that  is,  xfortfos.  His  generation  was 
before  the  creation,  indeed  eternal.  Tertullian  saith  so  too,  Lib.  de  Trinitate :  "  Quo- 
modo  primogenitus  esse  potuit,  nisi  quia  secundum  divinitatem  ante  omnem  creaturam 
ex  Deo  Patre  Sermo  processit." 


cord  undertake  the  office  of  a  mediator,  but  was  designed  to  it  of 
God  his  Father,  who  said  unto  him,  "Thou  art  my  Son,  to-day 
have  I  begotten  thee,"  declaring  him  so  to  be  with  power  after  his 
resurrection,  I  shall  acknowledge  him  to  have  better  skill  in  disput 
ing  than  as  yet  I  am  convinced  he  is  possessed  of. 

And  thus  have  I  cleared  the  eternal  sonship  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
evinced  the  vanity  of  attempting  to  fix  his  prerogative  therein  upon 
any  other  account,  not  doubting  but  that  all  who  love  him  in  sin 
cerity  will  be  zealous  of  his  glory  herein.  For  his  growing  up  to  be 
the  Son  of  God  by  degrees,  to  be  made  a  God  in  process  of  time,  to  be 
the  adopted  Son  of  God,  to  be  the  Son  of  God  upon  various  accounts 
of  diverse  kinds,  inconsistent  with  one  another,  to  have  had  such  a 
conception  and  generation  as  modesty  forbids  to  think  or  express, 
not  to  have  been  the  Son  of  God  until  after  his  death,  and  the  like 
monstrous  figments,  I  hope  he  will  himself  keep  his  own  in  an  ever 
lasting  abhorring  of. 

The  farther  confirmation  of  the  deity  of  Christ,  whereby  Mr 
B/s  whole  design  will  be  obviated,  and  the  vindication  of  the  tes 
timonies  wherewith  it  is  so  confirmed  from  his  masters,  is  the  work 
designed  for  the  next  chapter. 

There  are  yet  remaining  of  this  chapter  two  or  three  questions 
looking  the  same  way  with  those  already  considered,  which  will,  upon 
the  principles  already  laid  down  and  insisted  on,  easily  and  in  very 
few  words  be  turned  aside  from  prejudicing  the  eternal  deity  of  the 
Son  of  God.  His  10th,  then,  is, — 

"What  saith  the  Son  himself  concerning  the  prerogative  of  God  the 
Father  above  him  ? "  and  answer  is  given  John  xiv.  28 ;  Mark  xiii.  32 ; 
Matt.  xxiv.  36:  whereunto  is  subjoined  another  of  the  same,  "What 
saith  the  apostle  Paul?— A.  1  Cor.  xv.  24,  28,  xi.  3,  iii.  22,  23." 

The  intendment  of  these  questions  being  the  application  of  what 
is  spoken  of  Christ,  either  as  mediator  or  as  man,  unto  his  person, 
to  the  exclusion  of  any  other  consideration,  namely,  that  of  a  divine 
nature  therein,  the  whole  of  Mr  B/s  aim  in  them  is  sufficiently 
already  disappointed.  It  is  true,  there  is  an  order,  yea,  a  subordi 
nation,  in  the  persons  of  the  Trinity  themselves,  whereby  the  Son,  as 
to  his  personality,  may  be  said  to  depend  on  the  Father,  being  be 
gotten  of  him;  but  that  is  not  the  subordination  here  aimed  at  by 
Mr  B.,  but  that  which  he  underwent  by  dispensation  as  mediator,  or 
which  attends  him  in  respect  of  his  human  nature.  All  the  diffi 
culty  that  may  arise  from  these  kinds  of  attribution  to  Christ  the 
apostle  abundantly  salves  in  the  discovery  of  the  rise  and  occasion  of 
them,  Phil.  ii.  7-9.  He  who  was  in  the  form  of  God,  and  equal  to 
him,  was  in  the  form  of  a  servant,  whereunto  he  humbled  himself, 
his  servant,  and  less  than  he.  And  there  is  no  more  difficulty  in  the 
questions  wherewith  Mr  B.  amuses  himself  and  his  disciples  than 


there  was  in  that  wherewith  our  Saviour  stopped  the  mouth  of  the 
Pharisees, — namely,  how  Christ  could  be  the  son  of  David,  and  yet 
his  Lord,  whom  he  worshipped.  For  the  places  of  Scripture  in 
particular  urged  by  Mr  B.,  [such  as]  John  xiv.  28,  says  our  Saviour, 
"  My  Father  is  greater  than  I"  (mittens  misso,  says  Grotius  himself, 
referring  the  words  to  office,  not  nature),  which  he  was  and  is  in 
respect  of  that  work  of  mediation  which  he  had  undertaken;  but 
"  inaBqualitas  officii  non  tollit  sequalitatem  naturas."1  A  king's  son 
is  of  the  same  nature  with  his  father,  though  he  may  be  employed  by 
him  in  an  inferior  office.  He  that  was  less  than  his  Father  as  to  the 
work  of  mediation,  being  the  Father's  servant  therein,  is  equal  to 
him  as  his  Son,  as  God  to  be  blessed  for  ever.  Mark  xiii.  32,  Matt, 
xxiv.  36,  affirm  that  the  Father  only  knows  the  times  and  seasons 
mentioned,  not  the  angels,  nor  the  Son ;  and  yet,  notwithstanding, 
it  was  very  truly  said  of  Peter  to  Christ,  "  Lord,  thou  knowest  all 
things,"  John  xxi.  17.  He  that  in  and  of  the  knowledge  and  wis 
dom  which  as  man  he  had,  and  wherein  he  grew  from  his  infancy, 
knew  not  that  day,  yet  as  he  knew  all  things  knew  it;  it  was  not 
hidden  from  him,  being  the  day  by  him  appointed.  Let  Mr  B. 
acknowledge  that  his  knowing  all  things  proves  him  to  be  God,  and 
we  will  not  deny  but  his  not  knowing  the  day  of  judgment  proves 
him  to  have  another  capacity,  and  to  be  truly  man. 

As  man  he  took  on  him  those  affections  which  we  call  pvaixa  xai 
a5/a£A?jra  cra^,  amongst  which,  or  consequently  unto  which,  he  might 
be  ignorant  of  some  things.2  In  the  meantime,  he  who  made  all 
things,  as  Christ  did,  Heb.  i.  2,  knew  their  end  as  well  as  their  be 
ginning.  He  knew  the  Father,  and  the  day  by  him  appointed;  yea, 
all  things  that  the  Father  hath  were  his,  and  "  in  him  were  hid  all 
the  treasures  of  wisdom  and  knowledge,"  Col.  ii.  3. 

Paul  speaks  to  the  same  purpose,  1  Cor.  xv.  24,  28.  The  king 
dom  that  Christ  doth  now  peculiarly  exercise  is  his  economical 
mediatory  kingdom ;  which  shall  have  an  end  put  to  it  when  the 
whole  of  his  intendment  in  that  work  shall  be  fulfilled  and  accom 
plished.  But  that  he  is  not  also  sharer  with  his  Father  in  that  uni 
versal  monarchy  which,  as  God  by  nature,  he  hath  over  all,  this  doth 
not  at  all  prove.  All  the  argument  from  this  place  is  but  this  : 
"  Christ  shall  cease  to  be  mediator;  therefore  he  is  not  God."  And 
that  no  more  is  here  intended  is  evident  from  the  expression  of  it, 
"Then  shall  the  Son  himself  be  subject;"  which  if  it  intend  any 

1  "  Ideo  autem  nusquam  Rcriptum  est,  quod  Dens  Pater  major  sit  Spiritu  Sancto,  vel 
Spiritus  Sanctus  minor  Deo  Patre ;  quia  non  sic  assumpta  est  creatura  in  qua  appare- 
ret  S.  S.  sicut  assumptus  est  films  hominis,  in  qua  forma  ipsius  Verbi  Dei  persona  prse- 
sentaretur." — August,  lib.  i.  de  Trinit.  cap.  vi. 

A.UTO;  (frit  o  ng  xai  ftevof  vltf,    a    vrfiv    »    A£?a.apt,  yiviffdtt  uv    xai   itri    If^areav,  tfioxo~ 
i^ftt.;  foifitf  xai   v\tx.ia.,   au.px.a.-   ?£«/   yaf  till   Storns   ttvrau  ro  <ri>.tiov. — ProcluS.  Epis- 

cop.  Constan.  Ep.  ad  Armenios. 


thing  but  the  ceasing  from  the  administration  of  the  mediatory 
kingdom,  wherein  the  human  nature  is  a  sharer,  it  would  prove  that, 
as  Jesus  Christ  is  mediator,  he  is  not  in  subjection  to  his  Father, 
which  himself  abundantly  hath  manifested  to  be  otherwise.  Of 
1  Cor.  xi.  3,  and  iii.  22,  23,  there  is  the  same  reason,  both  speaking 
of  Christ  as  mediator;  whence  that  no  testimony  can  be  produced 
against  his  deity  hath  been  declared. 

He  adds,  12th,  "  Q.  Howbeit,  is  not  Christ  dignified,  as  with  the 
title  of  Lord,  so  also  with  that  of  God,  in  the  Scripture? — A.  [John 
xx.  28,]  Thomas  said,  "  My  Lord  and  my  God."  Verily,  if  Thomas 
said  that  Christ  was  his  God,  and  said  true,  Mr  B.  is  to  blame  who 
denies  him  to  be  God  at  all.  With  this  one  blast  of  the  Spirit  of 
the  Lord  is  his  fine  fabric  of  religion  blown  to  the  ground.  And  it 
may  be  supposed  that  Mr  B.  made  mention  of  this  portion  of  Scrip 
ture  that  he  might  have  the  honour  of  cutting  his  own  throat  and 
destroying  his  own  cause;  or  rather,  that  God,  in  his  righteous  judg 
ment,  hath  forced  him  to  open  his  mouth  to  his  own  shame.  What 
ever  be  the  cause  of  it,  Mr  B.  is  very  far  from  escaping  this  sword  of 
the  Lord,  either  by  his  insinuation  in  the  present  query,  or  diversion 
in  the  following.  For  the  present,  it  was  not  the  intent  of  Thomas  to 
dignify  Christ  with  titles,  but  to  make  a  plain  confession  of  his  faith, 
being  called  upon  by  Christ  to  believe.  In  this  state  he  professes 
that  he  believes  him  to  be  his  Lord  and  his  God.  Thomas  doubtless 
was  a  Christian  ;  and  Mr  B.  tells  us  that  Christians  have  but  one 
God,  chap.  i.  ques.  1,  Eph.  iv.  6.  Jesus  Christ,  then,  being  the  God 
of  Thomas,  he  is  the  Christians'  one  God,  if  Mr  B.  may  be  believed. 
It  is  not,  then,  the  dignifying  of  Christ  with  titles  (which  it  is  not  for 
men  to  do),  but  the  naked  confession  of  a  believer's  faith,  that  in  these 
words  is  expressed.  Christ  is  the  Lord  and  God  of  a  believer  ;  ergo 
the  only  true  God,  as  1  John  v.  20.  Mr  B.  perhaps  will  tell  you 
he  was  made  a  God  ;  so  one  abomination  begets  another, — infidelity 
idolatry  ; — of  this  afterward.  But  yet  he  was  not,  according  to  his 
companions,  made  a  God  before  his  ascension,  which  was  not  yet 
when  Thomas  made  his  solemn  confession. 

Some  attempt  also  is  made  upon  this  place  by  Grotius.  Kai  6  Qtic, 
pov.  "  Here  first,"  saith  he,  "  in  the  story  of  the  gospel,  is  this  word 
found  ascribed  by  the  apostle  unto  Jesus  Christ"  (which  Maldonate 
before  him  observed  for  another  purpose),  "to  wit,  after  he  had  by  his 
resurrection  proved  himself  to  be  him  from  whom  life,  and  that  eter 
nal,  ought  to  be  expected.  And  this  custom  abode  in  the  church, 
as  appears  not  only  in  the  apostolical  writings,  Rom.  ix.  5,  and  of 
the  ancient  Christians,  as  may  be  seen  in  Justin  Martyr  against 
Trypho,  but  in  the  Epistle  also  of  Pliny  unto  Trajan,  where  he  says 
that  the  Christians  sang  verses  to  Christ  as  to  God  j"1  or,  as  the 

1  "  Hie  primum  ea  vox  in  narratione  Evangelic*  reperitur  ab  Apostolis  Jesu  tributa, 


words  are  in  the  author,  "  Carmen  Christo,  quasi  Deo,  dicere  secum. 
invicem."  What  the  intendment  of  this  discourse  is  is  evident  to 
all  those  who  are  a  little  exercised  in  the  writings  of  them  whom  our 
author  all  along  in  his  Annotations  takes  care  of.  That  Christ  was 
now  made  a  God  at  his  resurrection,  and  is  so  called  from  the  power 
wherewith  he  was  intrusted  at  his  ascension,  is  the  aim  of  this  dis 
course.  Hence  he  tells  us  it  became  a  "  custom"  to  call  him  God 
among  the  Christians,  which  also  abode  amongst  them ;  and  to 
prove  this  "  custom"  he  wrests  that  of  the  apostle,  Rorn.  ix.  5,  where 
the  deity  of  Christ  is.spoken  of,  in  opposition  to  his  human  nature  or 
his  flesh,  that  he  had  of  the  Jews,  plainly  asserting  a  divine  nature  in 
him,  calling  him  God  subjectively,  and  not  only  by  way  of  attribution. 
But  this  is,  it  seems,  a  "custom,"  taken  up  after  Christ's  resurrection? 
to  call  him  God,  and  so  continued ;  though  John  testifies  expressly 
that  he  was  God  in  the  beginning.  It  is  true,  indeed,  much  is  not  to 
be  urged  from  the  expressions  of  the  apostles  before  the  pouring  out 
of  the  Spirit  upon  them,  as  to  any  eminent  acquaintance  Avith 
spiritual  things ;  yet  they  had  before  made  this  solemn  confession 
that  Christ  was  the  "  Son  of  the  living  God,"  Matt.  xvi.  16-18,  which 
is  to  the  full  as  much  as  what  is  here  by  Thomas  expressed.  That 
the  primitive  Christians  worshipped  Christ  and  invocated  him  not 
only  as  a  god,  but  professing  him  to  be  "  the  true  God  and  eternal 
life,"  we  have  better  testimonies  than  that  of  a  blind  Pagan,  who 
knew  nothing  of  them  nor  their  ways,  but  by  the  report  of  apostates, 
as  himself  confesseth.  But  learned  men  must  have  leave  to  make 
known  their  readings  and  observations,  whatever  become  of  the  sim 
plicity  of  the  Scripture. 

To  escape  the  dint  of  this  sword,  Mr  B.  nextly  queries:  " Q. 
Was  he  so  the  God  of  Thomas  as  that  he  himself  in  the  meantime 
did  not  acknowledge  another  to  be  his  God? — A.  John  xx.  17;  Rev. 
iii.  12." 

True,  he  who,  being  partaker  of  the  divine  essence,  in  the  form  of 
God,  was  Thomas'  God,  as  he  was  mediator,  the  head  of  his  church, 
interceding  for  them,  acknowledged  his  Father  to  be  his  God  ;  yea, 
God  may  be  said  to  be  his  God  upon  the  account  of  his  sonship  and 
personality,  in  which  regard  he  hath  his  deity  of  his  Father,  and 
is  "God  of  God."  Not  that  he  is  a  secondary,  lesser,  made  god,  a 
hero,  semideus,  as  Mr  B.  fancies  him,  but  "  God  blessed  for  ever,"  in 
order  of  subsistence  depending  on  the  Father. 

Of  the  same  nature  is  the  last  question,  namely,  "  Have  you  any 
passage  in  the  Scripture  where  Christ,  at  the  same  time  that  he 

postquam  scilicet  sua  resurrectione  probaverat,  se  esse  a  quo  vita  et  quidem  setcrna 
exspectari  deberet,  Vide  supra,  xi.  25.  Mansit  deinde  ille  mos  in  ecclcsia,  ut  apparet 
non  tantum  in  scriptis  Apostolicis  ut,  Rom.  ix.  5,  et  veterum  Christianorum,  ut  videre 
est  apud  Justinum  Martyrem  contra  Tryphonem,  sed  et  in  Plinii  ad  Trajanum  Epis- 
tola,  ubi  ait  Christianos  Christo,  ut  Deo,  carmina  cecinisse." — Grot,  in  loc. 


hath  the  appellation  of  God  given  to  him,  is  said  to  have  a  God  ? — 
A.  Heb.  i.  8,  9." 

By  Mr  B/s  favour,  Christ  is  not  said  to  have  a  God,  though  God 
be  said  to  be  his  God.  Verse  8,  Christ,  by  Mr  B/s  confession,  is 
expressly  called  God.  He  is,  then,  the  one  true  God  with  the  Father, 
or  another.  If  the  first,  what  doth  he  contend  about  ?  If  the  second, 
he  is  a  god  that  is  not  God  by  nature,' — that  is,  not  the  one  God  of 
Christians, — and  consequently  an  idol ;  and  indeed  such  is  the  Christ 
that  Mr  B.  worshippeth.  Whether  this  will  be  waived  by  the  help 
of  that  expression,  verse  9,  "  God,  thy  God,"  where  it  is  expressly 
spoken  of  him  in  respect  of  his  undertaking  the  office  of  mediation, 
wherein  he  was  "  anointed  of  God  with  the  oil  of  gladness  above  his 
fellows,"  God  and  his  saints  will  judge. 

Thus  the  close  of  this  chapter,  through  the  good,  wise  hand  of  the 
providence  of  God,  leaving  himself  and  his  truth  not  without  witness, 
hath  produced  instances  and  evidences  of  the  truth  opposed  abun 
dantly  sufficient,  without  farther  inquiry  and  labour,  to  discover  the 
sophistry  and  vanity  of  all  Mr  B/s  former  queries  and  insinuations; 
for  which  let  him  have  the  praise. 


An  entrance  into  the  examination  of  the  Racovian  Catechism  in  the  business  of 
the  deity  of  Christ — Their  arguments  against  it  answered  ;  and  testimonies 

of  the  eternity  of  Christ  vindicated. 

III.  ALTHOUGH  the  testimonies  and  arguments  for  the  deity -of 
Christ  might  be  urged  and  handled  to  a  better  advantage,  if  liberty 
might  be  used  to  insist  upon  them  in  the  method  that  seems  most  na 
tural  for  the  clearing  and  confirmation  of  this  important  truth,  yet  that 
I  may  do  two  works  at  once,  I  shall  insist  chiefly,  if  not  only,  on  those 
texts  of  Scripture  which  are  proposed  to  be  handled  and  answered  by 
the  author  or  authors  of  the  Racovian  Catechism ;  which  work  takes 
up  near  one-fourth  part  of  their  book,  and,  as  it  is  well  known,  there 
is  no  part  of  it  wherein  so  much  diligence,  pains,  sophistry,  and  cun 
ning  are  employed  as  in  that  chapter,  "Of  the  person  of  Christ,"  which 
by  God's  assistance  we  are  entering  upon  the  consideration  of. 

Those  who  have  considered  their  writings  know  that  the  very  sub 
stance  of  all  they  have  to  say  for  the  evading  of  the  force  of  our 
testimonies  for  the  eternal  deity  of  Christ  is  comprised  in  that 
chapter,  there  being  not  any  thing  material  that  any  of  them  have 
elsewhere  written  there  omitted.  And  those  who  are  acquainted 
with  them,  their  persons  and  abilities,  do  also  know  that  their  great 
strength  and  ability  for  disputation  lies  in  giving  plausible  answers, 


and  making  exceptions  against  testimonies,  cavilling  at  every  word 
and  letter ;  being  in  proof  and  argument  for  the  most  part  weak  and 
contemptible.  And  therefore,  in  this  long  chapter,  of  near  a  hundred 
pages,  all  that  themselves  propose  by  way  of  argument  against  the 
deity  of  Christ  is  contained  in  two  or  three  at  the  most,  the  residue 
being  wholly  taken  up  with  exceptions  to  so  many  of  the  texts  of 
Scripture  wherein  the  deity  of  Christ  is  asserted  as  they  have  been 
pleased  to  take  notice  of, — a  course  which  themselves  are  forced  to 
apologize  for  as  unbecoming  catechists.1 

I  shall,  then,  the  Lord  assisting,  consider  that  whole  chapter  of 
theirs  in  both  parts  of  it, — as  to  what  they  have  to  say  for  them 
selves,  or  to  plead  against  the  deity  of  Christ,  as  also  what  they 
bring  forth  for  their  defence  against  the  evidence  of  the  light  that 
shineth  from  the  texts  whose  consideration  they  propose  to  them 
selves,  to  which  many  of  like  sort  may  be  added. 

I  shall  only  inform  the  reader  that  this  is  a  business  quite  beyond 
my  first  intention  in  this  treatise,  to  whose  undertaking  I  have  been 
prevailed  on  by  the  desires  and  entreaties  of  some  who  knew  that 
I  had  this  other  work  imposed  on  me. 

Their  first  question  and  answer  are  : — 

Ques.  Declare  now  to  me  ivhat  I  ought  to  know  concerning  Jesus  Christ  f 

Ans.  Thou  must  know  that  of  the  things  of  which  thou  oughtest  to  know,  some 
belong  to  the  essence  of  Christ  and  some  to  his  office. 

Q.   WTiat  are  they  which  relate  to  his  person  ? 

A.  That  only  that  by  nature  he  is  a  true  man,  even  as  the  Scriptures  do  often 
witness,  amongst  others,  1  Tim.  ii.  5,  1  Cor.  xv.  21 ;  such  a  one  as  God  of  old 
promised  by  the  prophets,  and  such  as  the  creed,  commonly  called  the  Apostles', 
witnesseth  him  to  be;  which,  with  us,  all  Christians  embrace.2 

Ans.  That  Jesus  Christ  was  a  true  man,  in  his  nature  like  unto 
us,  sin  only  excepted,  we  believe,  and  do  abhor  the  abominations 
of  Paracelsus,  Wigelius,  etc.,  and  the  Familists  amongst  ourselves, 
who  destroy  the  verity  of  his  human  nature.  But  that  the  Soci- 
nians  believe  the  same,  that  he  is  a  man  in  heaven,  whatever  he 
was  upon  earth,  I  presume  the  reader  will  judge  that  it  may  be 
justly  questioned,  from  what  I  have  to  offer  (and  shall  do  it  in  its 
place)  on  that  account.  But  that  this  is  all  that  we  ought  to  know 
concerning  the  person  of  Christ  is  a  thing  of  whose  folly  and  vanity 
our  catechists  will  be  one  day  convinced.  The  present  trial  of  it 
between  us  depends  in  part  on  the  consideration  of  the  scriptures 

1  Interpres  Lect.  Prefat.  ad  Cat.  Eac. 

8  "  Rogatum  te  velim,  ut  mihi  ca  de  Jesu  Christo  exponas,  quse  me  scire  oporteat  ? 
— Sciendum  tibi  est,  quaedam  ad  essentiam  Jesu  Christi,  qusedam  ad  illius  munus  re- 
ferri,  quse  te  scire  oportet. 

"  Quaenam  ea  sunt  quse  ad  personam  ipsius  referuntur  ? — Id  solum,  quod  natura  sit 
homo  verus,  quemadmodum  ea  de  re  crebro  Scripturse  sacrae  testantur,  inter  alias, 
1  Tim.  ii.  5,  et  1  Cor.  xv.  21 ;  qualem  olim  Deus  per  prophetas  promiserat,  et  qualem 
etiam  esse  testatur  fidei  symbolum,  quod  vulgo  Apostolicum  vocant,  quod  nobiscunx 
universi  Christian!  amplectuntur." 


which  shall  afterward  be  produced  to  evince  the  contrary,  our  plea 
from  whence  shall  not  here  be  anticipated.  The  places  of  Scripture 
they  mention  prove  him  to  be  a  true  man, — that  as  man  he  died  and 
rose ;  but  that  he  who  was  man  was  not  also  in  one  person  God  (the 
name  of  man  there  expressing  the  person,  not  the  nature  of  man  only) 
they  prove  not.  The  prophets  foretold  that  Christ  should  be  such 
a  man  as  should  also  be  the  Son  of  God,  begotten  of  him,  Ps.  ii.  7 ; 
"The  mighty  God,"  Isa.  ix.  6,  7;  "Jehovah,"  Jer.  xxiii.  6;  "The  LORD 
of  hosts,"  Zech.  ii.  8,  9.  And  the  Apostles'  Creed  also  (as  it  is  un 
justly  called)  confesseth  him  to  be  the  only  Son  of  God,  our  Lord, 
and  requires  us  to  believe  in  him  as  we  do  in  God  the  Father;  which 
if  he  were  not  God  were  an  accursed  thing,  Jer.  xvii.  5. 

Q.  Is  therefore  the  Lord  Jesus  a  pure  (or  mere)  man  ? 

A.  By  no  means ;  for  he  was  conceived  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  born  of  the  Virgin 
Mary,  and  therefore  from  his  very  conception  and  birth  was  the  Son  of  God,  as 
we  read,  Luke  i.  35,  that  I  may  not  bring  other  causes,  which  thou  wilt  after 
ward  find  in  the  person  of  Christ,  which  most  evidently  declare  that  the  Lord 
Jesus  can  by  no  means  be  esteemed  a  pure  (or  mere)  man.1 

Ans.  1.  But  I  have  abundantly  demonstrated  that  Christ  neither 
was  nor  was  called  the  Son  of  God  upon  the  account  here  men 
tioned,  nor  any  other  whatever  intimated  in  the  close  of  the  answer, 
but  merely  and  solely  on  that  of  his  eternal  generation  of  the  es 
sence  of  his  Father. 

2.  The  inquiry  is  after  the  essence  of  Christ,  which  receives  not 
any  alteration  by  any  kind  of  eminency  or  dignity  that  belongs  to 
his  person.  If  Christ  be  by  essence  only  man,  let  him  have  what 
dignity  or  honour  he  can  have  possibly  conferred  upon  him,  let  him 
be  born  by  what  means  soever,  as  to  his  essence  and  nature  he  is 
a  man  still,  but  a  man,  and  not  more  than  a  man, — that  is,  purus 
homo,  a  "  mere  man," — and  not  <p vest  Qsoe,  "  God  by  nature,"  but 
such  a  god  as  the  Gentiles  worshipped,  Gal.  iv.  8.  His  being  made 
God  and  the  Son  of  God  afterward,  which  our  catechists  pretend, 
relating  to  office  and  dignity,  not  to  his  nature,  exempts  him  not 
at  all  from  being  a  mere  man.  This,  then,  is  but  a  flourish  to  de 
lude  poor  simple  souls  into  a  belief  of  their  honourable  thoughts  of 
Christ,  whom  yet  they  think  no  otherwise  of  than  the  Turks  do  of 
Mohammed,  nor  believe  he  was  otherwise  indeed,  or  is  to  Christians, 
than  as  Moses  to  the  Jews.  That  which  Paul  speaks  of  the  idols  of 
the  heathen,  that  they  were  not  gods  by  nature,  may,  according  to 
the  apprehension  of  these  catechists,  be  spoken  of  Christ ;  notwith- 

1  "  Ergo  Dominus  Jesus  est  purus  homo  ? — Nullo  pacto ;  etenim  est  conceptus  e 
Spiritu  Sancto,  natus  ex  Maria  Virgine,  eoque  ab  ipsa  conceptione  et  ortu  Filius  Dei 
est,  ut  ea  de  re  Luc.  i.  35  legimus,  ubi  angelus  Mariam  ita  alloquitur,  Spiritus  Sanc- 
tus  superveniet  in  te,  etc.,  ut  alias  causas  non  afieram,  quas  postmodum  in  Jesu  Christi 
persona  deprehendes,  quse  evidentissime  ostendunt  Dominum  Jesum  pro  puro  homine 
nullo  modo  accipi  posse." 


standing  any  exaltation  or  deification  that  he  hath  received,  he  is 
by  nature  no  god.  Yea,  the  apprehensions  of  these  gentlemen 
concerning  Christ  and  his  deity  are  the  same  upon  the  matter  with 
those  of  the  heathen  concerning  their  worthies  and  heroes,  who, 
by  au  avodeutfig,  were  translated  into  the  number  of  their  gods,  as 
Jupiter,  Hercules,  and  others.  They  called  them  gods,  indeed;  but 
put  them  close  to  it,  they  acknowledged  that  properly  there  was  but 
one  God,  but  that  these  men  were  honoured  as  being,  upon  [account 
of]  their  great  worth  and  noble  achievements,  taken  up  to  blessedness 
and  power.  Such  an  hero,  an  Hermes  or  Mercury,  do  they  make  of 
Jesus  Christ,  who,  for  his  faithful  declaring  the  will  of  God,  Avas 
denied;  but  in  respect  of  essence  and  nature,  which  here  is  inquired 
after,  if  he  be  any  thing  according  to  their  principles  (of  making 
which  supposal  I  shall  give  the  reader  a  fair  account),  he  was,  he  is, 
and  will  be,  a  mere  man  to  all  eternity,  and  no  more.  They  allow 
him  no  more,  as  to  his  essence,  than  that  wherein  he  was  like  us 
in  all  things,  sin  only  excepted,  Heb.  ii.  17. 

Q.  You  said  a  little  above  that  the  Lord  Jesus  is  by  nature  man;  hath  he  also 
a  divine  nature  f 

A.  No ;  for  that  is  not  only  repugnant  to  sound  reason,  but  also  to  the 

But  this  is  that  which  is  now  to  be  put  to  the  trial,  Whether  the 
asserting  of  the  deity  of  Christ  be  repugnant  to  the  Scriptures  or 
no.  And  as  we  shall  see  in  the  issue  that  as  these  catechists  haye 
not  been  able  to  answer  or  evade  the  evidence  of  any  one  testimony 
of  Scripture,  of  more  than  an  hundred  that  are  produced  for  the- 
confirmation  of  the  truth  of  his  eternal  deity,  so,  notwithstanding 
the  pretended  flourish  here  at  the  entrance,  that  they  are  not  able 
to  produce  any  one  place  of  Scripture,  so  much  as  in  appearance, 
rising  up  against  it.  [As]  for  that  right  reason,  which  in  this  matter 
of  mere  divine  revelation  they  boast  of,  and  give  it  the  pre-eminence 
in  their  disputes  against  the  person  of  Christ  above  the  Scripture, 
unless  they  discover  the  consonancy  of  it  to  the  word,  to  the  law  and 
testimony,  whatever  they  propose,  on  that  account  may  be  rejected 
with  as  much  facility  as  it  is  proposed.  But  yet,  if  by  "  right  reason" 
they  understand  reason  so  far  captivated  to  the  obedience  of  faith  as 
to  acquiesce  in  whatever  God  hath  revealed,  and  to  receive  it  as 
truth, — than  which  duty  there  is  not  any  more  eminent  dictate  of 
right  reason  indeed, — we  for  ever  deny  the  first  part  of  this  assertion, 
and  shall  now  attend  to  the  proof  of  it.  Nor  do  we  here  plead  that 
reason  is  blind  and  corrupted,  and  that  the  natural  man  cannot  dis 
cern  the  things  of  God,  and  so  require  that  men  do  prove  themselves 

1  "  Dixeras  paulo  superius  Dominum  Jesum  natura  esse  homlnem ;  an  idem  habet 
naturam  divinam  ? — Nequaquam ;  nam  id  lion  soluin  ratioiii  gauge,  verum  etiam  di- 
viuis  litcris  repugnat." 


regenerate  before  we  admit  them  to  judge  of  the  truth  of  the  pro 
positions  under  debate;  which  though  necessary  for  them  who  would 
know  the  gospel  for  their  own  good,  so  as  to  be  wise  unto  salvation, 
yet  it  being  the  grammatical  and  literal  sense  of  propositions  as  laid 
down  in  the  word  of  the  Scripture  that  we  are  to  judge  of  in  this 
case,  we  require  no  more  of  men,  to  the  purpose  in  hand,  but  an  assent 
to  this  proposition  (which  if  they  will  not  give,  we  can  by  undeni 
able  demonstration  compel  them  to),  "  Whatever  God,  who  is  prima 
veritas,  hath  revealed  is  true,  whether  we  can  comprehend  the 
things  revealed  or  no ; "  which  being  granted,  we  proceed  with  our 
catechists  in  their  attempt. 

Q.  Declare  how  it  is  contrary  to  right  reason. 

A.  I.  In  this  regard,  that  two  substances  having  contrary  properties  cannot 
meet  in  one  person ;  such  as  are  to  be  mortal  and  immortal,  to  have  a  beginning 
and  to  want  a  beginning,  to  be  changeable  and  unchangeable.  2.  Because  two 
natures,  each  of  them  constituting  a  person,  cannot  likewise  agree  or  meet  in  one 
person;  for  instead  of  one  there  must  (then)  be  two  persons,  and  so  also  two 
Christs  would  exist,  whom  all  without  controversy  acknowledge  to  be  one,  and 
his  person  one.1 

And  this  is  all  which  these  gentlemen  offer  to  make  good  their 
assertion  that  the  deity  of  Christ  is  repugnant  to  right  reason  ;  which, 
therefore,  upon  what  small  pretence  they  have  done,  will  quickly  ap 

1.  It  is  true  that  there  cannot  be  such  a  personal  uniting  of  two 
substances  with  such  diverse  properties  as  by  that  union  to  make  an 
exequation,  or  an  equalling  of  those  diverse  properties ;  but  that  there 
may  not  be  such  a  concurrence  and  meeting  of  such  different  sub 
stances  in  one  person,  both  of  them  preserving  entire  to  themselves 
their  essential  properties,  which  are  so  diverse,   there  is  nothing 
pleaded  nor  pretended.     And  to  suppose  that  there  cannot  be  such 
an  union  is  to  beg  the  thing  in  question  against  the  evidence  of  many 
express  testimonies  of  Scripture,  without  tendering  the  least  induce 
ment  for  any  to  grant  their  request. 

2.  In  calling  these  properties  of  the  several  natures  in  Christ  "  ad 
verse"  or  "  contrary,"  they  would  insinuate  a  consideration  of  them  as 
of  qualities  in  a  subject,  whose  mutual  contrariety  should  prove  de 
structive  to  the  one,  if  not  both,  or,  by  a  mixture,  cause  an  exurgency 
of  qualities  of  another  temperature.     But  neither  are  these  properties 
such  qualities,  nor  are  they  inherent  in  any  common  subject;  but  [they 
are]  inseparable  adjuncts  of  the  different  natures  of  Christ,  never 

1  "  Cedo  qui  ration!  sanae  repugnat  ? — Primo,  ad  eum  modum,  quod  duae  substantiae, 
proprietatibus  adversae,  coire  in  unam  personara  nequeant ;  ut  sunt  mortalem  et  im- 
mortalem  esse,  principium  habere  et  principio  carere,  mutabilem  et  immutabilem  ex- 
istere.  Deinde,  quod  duae  naturae,  personam  singulaa  constituentes,  in  unam  personam 
convenire  itidem  nequeant ;  nam  loco  unius  duas  personas  esse  oporteret,  atque  ita  duos 
Christos  existere,  quern  unum  esse,  et  unam  ipsius  personam  omnes  citra  omnem  con- 
troversiam  agnoscunt." 

VOL.  XII.  14 


mixed  with  one  another,  nor  capable  of  any  such  thing  to  eternity,  nor 
ever  becoming  properties  of  the  other  nature,  which  they  belong  not 
•unto,  though  all  of  them  do  denominate  the  person  wherein  both  the 
natures  do  subsist.  So  that  instead  of  pleading  reason,  which  they 
pretended  they  would,  they  do  nothing,  in  this  first  part  of  their 
answer,  but  beg  the  thing  in  question ;  which,  being  of  so  much  im 
portance  and  concernment  to  our  souls,  is  never  like  to  be  granted 
them  on  any  such  terms.  Will  Christ,  on  their  entreaties,  cease  to  be 

Neither  is  their  second  pretended  argument  of  any  other  kind. 

1.  We  deny  that  the  human  nature  of  Christ  had  any  such  subsist 
ence  of  its  own  as  to  give  it  a  proper  personality,  being  from  the 
time  of  its  conception  assumed  into  subsistence  with  the  Son  of  God. 
This  we  prove  by  express  texts  of  Scripture,  Isa.  vii.  1 4,  ix.  6  ;  John 
i.  14  ;  Horn.  i.  3,  ix.  5  ;  Heb.  ii.  16  ;  Luke  i.  35  ;  Heb.  ix.  14 ;  Acts 
iii.  15,  xx.  28  ;    Phil.  ii.  7 ;    1  Cor.  ii.  8,  etc. ;  and  by  arguments 
taken  from  the  assigning  of  all  the  diverse  properties  by  them  men 
tioned  before,  and  sundry  others,  to  the  same  person  of  Christ,  etc. 
That  we  would  take  it  for  granted  that  this  cannot  be,  is  the  modest 
request  of  these  gentlemen  with  whom  we  have  to  do. 

2.  If  by  natures  constituting  persons  they  mean  those  who,  ante 
cedently  to  their  union,  have  actually  done  so,  we  grant  they  cannot 
meet  in  one  person,  so  that  upon  this  union  they  should  cease  to  be 
two  persons.     The  personality  of  either  of  them  being  destroyed, 
their  different  beings  could  not  be  preserved.    But  if  by  "  constitut 
ing"  they  understand  only  that  which  is  so  in  potentia,  or  a  next  pos 
sibility  of  constituting  a  person,  then,  as  before,  they  only  beg  of  us 
that  we  would  not  believe  that  the  person  of  the  Word  did  assume 
the  human  nature  of  Christ,  that  "  holy  thing  that  was  born  of  the 
Virgin,"  into  subsistence  with  itself;  which,  for  the  reasons  before 
mentioned,  and  others  like  to  them,  we  cannot  grant. 

And  this  is  the  substance  of  all  that  these  men  plead  and  make  a 
noise  with  in  the  world,  in  an  opposition  to  the  eternal  deity  of  the 
Son  of  God !  This  pretence  of  reason  (which  evidently  comes  short 
of  being  any  thing  else)  is  their  shield  and  buckler  in  the  cause  they 
have  unhappily  undertaken.  When  they  tell  us  of  Christ's  being 
hungry  and  dying,  we  say  it  was  in  the  human  nature,  wherein  he 
was  obnoxious  to  such  things  no  less  than  we,  being  therein  made 
like  unto  us  in  all  things,  sin  only  excepted ; — when  of  his  submis 
sion  and  subjection  to  his  Father,  we  tell  them  it  is  in  respect  of  the 
office  of  mediator,  which  he  willingly  undertook,  and  that  his  in 
equality  unto  him  as  to  that  office  doth  no  way  prejudice  his  equality 
with  him  in  respect  of  his  nature  and  being.  But  when,  with  the 
Scriptures  and  arguments  from  thence,  as  clear  and  convincing  as  if 
they  were  written  with  the  beams  of  the  sun,  we  prove  our  dear  Lord 


Jesus,  in  respect  of  a  divine  nature,  whereof  he  was  partaker  from 
eternity,  to  be  God,  blessed  for  ever,  they  tell  us  it  cannot  be  that 
two  such  diverse  natures  as  those  of  God  and  man  should  be  united 
in  one  person  ;  and  it  cannot  be  so,  because  it  cannot  be  so, — there  is 
no  such  union  among  other  things!  And  these  things  must  be,  that 
those  who  are  approved  may  be  tried.  But  let  us  hear  them  out. 

Q.  But  whereas  they  show  that  Christ  consisteth  of  a  divine  and  human  nature, 
as  a  man  consisteth  of  soul  and  body,  what  is  to  be  answered  them? 

A.  That  here  is  a  very  great  difference ;  for  they  say  that  the  two  natures  in 
Christ  are  so  united  that  Christ  is  both  God  and  man.  But  the  soul  and  body 
are  in  that  manner  conjoined  in  man,  that  a  man  is  neither  soul  nor  body ;  for 
neither  soul  nor  body  doth  singly  of  itself  constitute  a  person.  But  as  the  di 
vine  nature  by  itself  constitutes  a  person,  so  it  is  necessary  that  the  human  nature 
should  do.1 

Ans.  1.  In  what  sense  it  may  be  said  that  Christ,  that  is,  the 
person  of  Christ,  consisteth  of  a  divine  and  human  nature,  was  be 
fore  declared.  The  person  of  the  Son  of  God  assumed  the  human 
nature  into  subsistence  with  itself,  and  both  in  that  one  person  are 

2.  If  our  catechists  have  no  more  to  say,  to  the  illustration  given 
of  the  union  of  the  two  natures  in  the  person  of  Christ  by  that  of  the 
soul  and  body  in  one  human  person,  but  that  there  is  "  a  great  dif 
ference"  in  something  between  them,  they  do  but  filch  away  the 
grains  that  are  allowed  to  every  similitude,  and  show  wherein  the 
comparates  differ,  but  answer  not  to  that  wherein  they  do  agree. 

3.  All  that  is  intended  by  this  similitude  is,  to  show  that  besides 
the  change  of  things,  one  into  another,  by  the  loss  of  one,  as  of 
water  into  wine  by  Christ,  and  besides  the  union  that  is  in  physi 
cal  generation  by  mixture,  whereby  and  from  whence  some  third 
thing  ariseth,  that  also  there  is  a  substantial  -union,  whereby  one 
thing  is  not  turned  into  another  nor  mixed  with  it.   And  the  end  of 
using  this  similitude  (which,  to  please  our  catechists,  we  can  forbear, 
acknowledging  that  there  is  not  among  created  beings  any  thing 
that  can  fully  represent  this,  which  we  confess  "  without  controversy 
to  be  a  great  mystery")  is  only  to  manifest  the  folly  of  that  assertion 
of  their  master  on  John  i.,  "  That  if  the  'Word  be  made  flesh'  in  our 
sense,  it  must  be  turned  into  flesh ;  for,"  saith  he,  "  one  thing  cannot 
be  made  another  but  by  charge,  conversion,  and  mutation  into  it:" 
the  absurdity  of  which  assertion  is  sufficiently  evinced  by  the  sub 
stantial  union  of  soul  and  body,  made  one  person,  without  that  alter- 

1  "  Cum  vero  illi  ostendunt,  Christum  sic  ex  natura  divina  et  humana  constare,  quem- 
admodum  homo  ex  animo  et  corpore  constet,  quid  illis  respondendum  ? — Permagnum 
hie  esse  discrimen ;  illi  enim  aiunt,  duas  naturas  in  Christo  ita  unitas  esse,  ut  Christus 
sit  Deus  et  homo.  Anima  vero  et  corpus  ad  eum  modum  in  homine  conjuncta  sunt,  ut 
nee  anima  nee  corpus  ipse  homo  sit,  nee  enim  anima  nee  corpus  sigillatim  personam 
constituunt.  At  ut  natura  divina  per  se  constituit  personam,  ita  humana  constituat 
per  se  necesse  est." 


ation  and  Change  of  their  natures  which  is  pleaded  for.     Neither  is 
the  Word  made  flesh  by  alteration,  but  by  union. 

4.  It  is  confessed  that  the  soul  is  not  said  to  be  made  the  body, 
nor  the  body  said  to  be  made  the  soul,  as  the  Word  is  said  to  be 
made  flesh;  for  the  union  of  soul  and  body  is  not  a  union  of  distinct 
substances  subsisting  in  one  common  subsistence,  but  a  union  of  two 
parts  of  one  nature,  whereof  the  one  is  the  form  of  the  other.     And 
herein  is  the  dissimilitude  of  that  similitude.     Hence  will  that  pre 
dication  be  justified  in  Christ,  "  The  Word  was  made  flesh,"  without 
any  change  or  alteration,  because  of  that  subsistence  whereunto  the 
flesh  or  human  nature  of  Christ  was  assumed,  which  is  common  to 
them  both.     And  so  it  is  in  accidental  predications.     When  we  say 
a  man  is  made  white,  black,  or  pale,  we  do  not  intend  that  he  is  as 
to  his  substance  changed  into  whiteness,  etc.,  but  that  he  who  is  a 
man  is  also  become  white. 

5.  It  is  true  that  the  soul  is  not  a  person,  nor  the  body,  but  a 
person  is  the  exurgency  of  their  conjunction :  and  therefore  we  do 
not  say  that  herein  the  similitude  is  [to  be]  urged,  for  the  divine 
nature  of  Christ  had  its  own  personality  antecedent  to  this  union  ; 
nor  is  the  union  of  his  person  the  union  of  several  parts  of  the  same 
nature,  but  the  concurrence  of  several  natures  in  one  subsistence. 

6.  That  it  is  "  of  necessity  that  Christ's  human  nature  should  of 
itself  constitute  a  person,"  is  urged  upon  the  old  account  of  begging 
the  thing  in  question.     This  is  that  which  in  the  case  of  Christ  we 
deny,  and  produce  all  the  proofs  before  mentioned  to  make  evident 
the  reason  of  our  denial ;  but  our  great  masters  here  say  the  contrary, 
and  our  under- catechists  are  resolved  to  believe  them.     Christ  was  a 
true  man,  because  he  had  the  true  essence  of  a  man,  soul  and  body, 
with  all  their  essential  properties.  A  peculiar  personality  belongeth  not 
to  the  essence  of  a  man,  but  to  his  existence  in  such  a  manner.  Neither 
do  we  deny  Christ  to  have  a  person  as  a  man,  but  to  have  a  human 
person:  for  the  human  nature  of  Christ  subsisteth  in  that  which, 
though  it  be  in  itself  divine,  yet  as  to  that  act  of  sustentatiou  which 
it  gives  the  human  nature,  is  the  subsistence  of  a  man ;  on  which 
account  the  subsistence  of  the  human  nature  of  Christ  is  made  more 
noble  and  excellent  than  that  of  any  other  man  whatever. 

And  this  is  the  whole  plea  of  our  catechists  from  reason,  that  where 
to  they  so  much  pretend,  and  which  they  give  the  pre-eminence  unto  in 
their  attempts  against  the  deity  of  Christ,  as  the  chief,  if  not  the  only 
engine  they  have  to  work  by.  And  if  they  be  thus  weak  in  the  main 
body  of  then:  forces,  certainly  that  reserve  which  they  pretend  from 
Scripture, — whereof,  indeed,  they  have  the  meanest  pretence  and  show 
that  ever  any  of  the  sons  of  men  had  who  were  necessitated  to  make  a 
plea  from  it  in  a  matter  of  so  great  concernment  as  that  now  under 
consideration, — will  quickly  disappear.  Thus,  then,  they  proceed: — | 


Q.  Declare,  also,  how  it  is  repugnant  to  Scripture  that  Christ  hath  a  divine 

A.  First,  Because  that  the  Scripture  proposeth  to  us  one  only  God  by  nature, 
whom  we  have  above  declared  to  be  the  Father  of  Christ.  Secondly,  The  same 
Scripture  testifieth  that  Jesus  Christ  was  by  nature  a  man,  whereby  it  taketh  from 
him  any  divine  nature.  Thirdly,  Because  whatever  divine  thing  Christ  hath,  the 
Scripture  plainly  teacheth  that  he  had  it  by  a  gift  of  the  Father,  Matt,  xxviii.  18  ; 
Phil.  ii.  9 ;  1  Cor.  xv.  27 ;  John  v.  19,  x.  25.  Lastly,  Because  the  same  Scripture 
most  evidently  showing  that  Jesus  Christ  did  not  vindicate  and  ascribe  all  his 
divine  works  to  himself,  or  to  any  divine  nature  of  his  own,  but  to  his  Father,  makes 
it  plain  that  divine  nature  in  Christ  was  altogether  in  vain,  and  would  have  been 
without  any  cause.1 

And  this  is  that  which  our  catechists  have  to  pretend  from  Scrip 
ture  against  the  deity  of  Christ,  concluding  that  any  such  divine 
nature  in  him  would  be  superfluous  and  needless, — themselves  being 
judges.  In  the  strength  of  what  here  they  have  urged,  they  set 
themselves  to  evade  the  evidence  of  near  fifty  express  texts  of  Scrip 
ture,  by  themselves  produced  and  insisted  on,  giving  undeniable  tes 
timony  to  the  truth  they  oppose.  Let,  then,  what  they  have  brought 
forth  be  briefly  considered : — 

1 .  The  Scripture  doth  indeed  propose  unto  us  "  one  only  God  by 
nature,"  and  we  confess  that  that  only  true  God  is  the  "  Father  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ; "  but  we  say  that  the  Son  is  partaker  of  the 
Father's  nature,  of  the  same  nature  with  him,  as  being  his  proper 
Son,  and,  by  his  own  testimony,  one  with  him.    He  is  such  a  Son  (as 
hath  been  declared)  as  is  begotten  of  the  essence  of  his  Father ;  and 
is  therefore  God,  blessed  for  ever.     If  the  Father  be  God  by  nature, 
so  is  the  Son ;  for  he  is  of  the  same  nature  with  the  Father. 

2.  To  conclude  that  Christ  is  not  God  because  he  is  man,  is  plainly 
and  evidently  to  beg  the  thing  in  question.     We  evidently  disco 
ver  in  the  person  of  Christ  properties  that  are  inseparable  adjuncts 
of  a  divine  nature,  and  such  also  as  no  less  properly  belong  to  a 
human  nature.     From  the  asserting  of  the  one  of  these  to  conclude 
to  a  denial  of  the  other,  is  to  beg  that  which  they  are  not  able  to 
dig  for. 

3.  There  is  a  twofold  communication  of  the  Father  to  the  Son : — 
(1.)  By  eternal  generation.   So  the  Son  receives  his  personality,  and 
therein  his  dmne  nature,  from  him  who  said  unto  him,  "  Thou  art 
my  Son ;  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee."  And  this  is  so  far  from  dis- 

1  "  Doce  etiara,  qui  id  rcpugnet  Scripturae  Christum  habere  divinam  naturam. — 
Primum,  ea  ratione,  quod  Scriptura  nobis  unum  tantum  natura  Deum  proponat,  quern 
superius  demonstravimus  esse  Christ!  Patrem.  Secundo,  eadem  Scriptura  testatur, 
Jesum  Christum  natura  esse  hominem,  ufc  superius  ostensiim  est ;  quo  ipso  illi  naturam 
adimit  divinam.  Tertio,  quod  quicquid  divinum  Christus  habeat,  Scriptura  eum  Patris 
dono  habere  aperte  doceat,  Matt,  xxviii.  18;  Phil.  ii.  9;  1  Cor.  xv.  27;  John  v.  19, 
x.  25.  Denique  cum  eadem  Scriptura  apertissime  ostendat,  Jesum  Christum  omnia  sua 
facta  divina  non  sibi,  ncc  alicui  naturae  divinse  suse,  sed  Patri  suo  vindicare  solitum 
fuisse,  planum  facit,  cam  divinam  in  Christo  naturam  prorsus  otiosam,  ac  sine 
causa  futuram  fuisse." 


proving  the  deity  of  Christ  that  it  abundantly  confirms  it.  And  thi? 
is  mentioned,  John  v.  19-23.  This  Christ  hath  by  nature.  (2.)  By 
collation  of  gifts,  honour  and  dignity,  exaltation  and  glory,  upon, 
him  as  mediator,  or  in  respect  of  that  office  which  he  humbled  him 
self  to  undergo,  and  for  the  full  execution  whereof  and  investiture 
[where]  with  glory,  honour,  and  power  were  needful;  which  is  men 
tioned,  Matt,  xxviii.  18,  Phil.  ii.  9, 1  Cor.  xv.  27:  which  is  by  no  means 
derogatory  to  the  deity  of  the  Son ;  for  inequality  in  respect  of  office 
is  well  consistent  with  equality  in  respect  of  nature.  This  Christ 
hath  by  grace.  Matt,  xxviii.  18,  Christ  speaks  of  himself  as  tho 
roughly  furnished  with  authority  for  the  accomplishing  of  the  work 
of  mediation  which  he  had  undertaken.  It  is  of  his  office,  not  of 
his  nature  or  essence,  that  he  speaks.  Phil.  ii.  9,  Christ  is  said  to  be 
exalted ;  which  he  was  in  respect  of  the  real  exaltation  given  to  his 
human  nature,  and  the  manifestation  of  the  glory  of  his  divine, 
which  he  had  with  his  Father  before  the  world  was,  but  had  eclipsed 
for  a  season.  1  Cor.  xv.  27  relates  to  the  same  exaltation  of  Christ 
as  before. 

4.  It  is  false  that  Christ  doth  not  ascribe  the  divine  works  which 
he  wrought  to  himself  and  his  own  divine  power,  although  that  he 
often  also  makes  mention  of  the  Father,  as  by  whose  appointment  he 
wrought  those  works,  as  mediator:  John  v.  17,  "  My  Father  worketh 
hitherto,  and  I  work;"  verse  19,  "  For  what  things  soever  the  Father 
doeth,  these  also  doeth  the  Son;"  verse  21,  "  For  as  the  Father  rais- 
eth  up  the  dead,  and  quickeneth  them,  even  so  the  Son  quickeneth 
whom  he  will."  Himself  wrought  the  works  that  he  did,  though  as 
to  the  end  of  his  working  them,  which  belonged  to  his  office  of  me 
diation,  he  still  relates  to  his  Father's  designation  and  appointment. 

And  this  is  the  whole  of  our  catechists'  plea  from  reason  and 
Scripture  against  the  deity  of  Christ.  [As]  for  the  conclusion,  of 
the  superfluousness  and  needlessness  of  such  a  divine  nature  in  the 
Mediator,  as  it  argues  them  to  be  ignorant  of  the  Scriptures,  and  of 
the  righteousness  of  God,  and  of  the  nature  of  sin,  so  it  might  ad 
minister  occasion  to  insist  upon  the  demonstration  of  the  necessity 
which  there  was  that  he  who  was  to  be  mediator  between  God  and 
man  should  be  both  God  and  man,  but  that  I  aim  at  brevity,  and 
the  consideration  of  it  may  possibly  fall  in  upon  another  account,  so 
that  here  I  shall  not  insist  thereon. 

Nextly,  then,  they  address  themselves  to  that  which  is  their  proper 
work  (wherein  they  are  exceedingly  delighted), — namely,  in  giving 
in  exceptions  against  the  testimonies  produced  for  the  confirmation 
of  the  truth  under  consideration,  which  they  thus  enter  upon: — 

Q.  But  they  endeavour  to  assert  the  divine  nature  of  Christ  from  the  Scrip 

A.  They  endeavour  it,  indeed,  diverse  ways ;  and  that  whilst  they  study  either  to 


evince  out  of  certain  scriptures  what  is  not  in  them,  or  whilst  they  argue  per 
versely  from  those  things  which  are  in  the  scriptures,  and  so  evilly  bring  their 
business  to  pass.1 

These,  it  seems,  are  the  general  heads  of  our  arguments  for  the 
deity  of  Christ;  but  before  we  part  we  shall  bring  our  catechists  to 
another  reckoning,  and  manifest  both  that  what  we  assert  is  expressly 
contained  in  the  Scriptures,  and  what  we  conclude  by  ratiocination 
from  them  hath  an  evidence  in  it  which  they  are  not  able  to  resist. 
But  they  say, — 

Q.  What  are  those  things  which  they  labour  to  evince  concerning  Christ  out  of 
the  Scriptures,  which  are  not  contained  in  them  ? 

A.  Of  this  sort  is,  as  they  speak,  his  pre-eternity ;  which  they  endeavour  to  con 
firm  with  two  sorts  of  scriptures: — 1.  Such  as  wherein  they  suppose  this  pre- 
eternity  is  expressed ;  2.  Such  as  wherein,  though  it  be  not  expressed,  yet  they 
think  that  it  may  be  gathered  from  them.2 

That  we  do  not  only  "  suppose,"  but  have  also  as  great  an  assurance 
as  the  plain,  evident,  and  redoubled  testimony  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
can  give  us  of  the  eternity  of  Jesus  Christ,  shall  be  made  evident  in 
the  ensuing  testimonies,  both  of  the  one  sort  and  the  other,  especially 
by  such  as  are  express  thereunto ;  for  in  this  matter  we  shall  very  little 
trouble  the  reader  with  collections  and  arguings,  the  matter  inquired 
after  being  express  and  evident  in  the  words  and  terms  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  himself.  They  say,  then, — 

Q.  Which  are  those  testimonies  of  Scripture  which  seem  to  them  to  express  his 
pre-eternity  ? 

A.  They  are  those  in  which  the  Scripture  witnesseth  of  Christ  that  he  was  in 
the  beginning,  that  he  was  in  heaven,  that  he  was  before  Abraham,  John  i.  1, 
vi.  62,  viii.  58.3 

Before  I  come  to  the  consideration  of  the  particular  places  pro 
posed  by  them  to  be  insisted  on,  I  shall  desire  to  premise  one  or  two 
things;  as, — 

1.  That  it  is  sufficient  for  the  disproving  of  their  hypothesis  con 
cerning  Christ  if  we  prove  him  to  have  been  existent  before  his 
incarnation,  whether  the  testimonies  whereby  we  prove  it  reach  ex 
pressly  to  the  proof  of  his  eternity  or  no.  That  which  they  have 
undertaken  to  maintain  is,  that  Christ  had  no  existence  before  his 
conception  and  birth  of  the  Virgin ; — which  if  it  be  disproved,  they 
do  not,  they  cannot,  deny  but  that  it  must  be  on  the  account  of  a 

1  "  Atqui  illi  e  Scripturis  illam  divinam  in  Christo  naturam  asserere  conantur  ? — Co- 
nantur  quidem  variis  modis;  idque  dum  student  aut  e  scripturis  quibusdam  evincere 
quae  in  iis  non  habentur,  aut  dum  ex  iis  quae  in  scripturis  habentur  perperam  ratio- 
cinantur,  ac  male  rem  suam  conficiunt." 

2  "  Quae  vero  sunt  ilia  quae  illi  de  Christo  e  Scripturis  evincere  laborant  quae  illic  non 
habentur  ? — Est  illius,  ut  loquuntur,  prseaeternitas,  quam  duplici  scripturarum  genere 
approbare  nituntur.     Primum  ejusmodi  est,  in  quo  prae-aeternitatem  bane  expressam 
putant.     Secundum,  in  quo  licet  expressa  non  sit,  earn  tamen  colligi  arbitran'tur." 

5  "  Quaenam  sunt  testimonia  Scriptures  quae  videntur  ipsis  earn  prae-setemitatem  ex- 
primere  ? — Sunt  ea  in  quibus  Scriptura  testatur  de  Christo,  ipsum  fuisse  in  principle, 
fuisse  in  coelo,  fuisse  ante  Abrahamum,  Jon.  i.  1,  vi.  62,  viii.  58." 


divine  nature;  for  as  to  the  incarnation  of  any  pre-existing  creature 
(which  was  the  Arians'  madness),  they  disavow  and  oppose  it. 

2.  That  those  three  places  mentioned  are  very  far  from  being  all 
wherein  there  is  express  confirmation  of  the  eternity  of  Christ ;  and 
therefore,  when  I  have  gone  through  the  consideration  of  them,  I 
shall  add  some  others  also,  which  are  of  no  less  evidence  and  perspi 
cuity  than  those  whose  vindication  we  are  by  them  called  unto. 

To  the  first  place  mentioned  they  thus  proceed: — 

Q.   What  dost  thou  answer  to  the  first  9 

A.  In  the  place  cited  there  is  nothing  about  that  pre-eternity,  seeing  here  is 
mention  of  the  beginning,  which  is  opposed  to  eternity.  But  the  word  "  beginning  " 
is  almost  always  in  the  Scripture  referred  to  the  subject-matter,  as  may  be  seen, 
Dan.  viii.  1 ;  John  xv.  27,  xvi.  4;  Acts  xi.  15:  and  therefore,  seeing  the  subject- 
matter  here  is  the  gospel,  whose  description  John  undertakes,  without  doubt, 
by  his  word  "  beginning,"  John  understood  the  beginning  of  the  gospel. 

This  place  being  express  to  our  purpose,  and  the  matter  of  great 
importance,  I  shall  first  confirm  the  truth  contended  for  from  thence, 
and  then  remove  the  miserable  subterfuge  which  our  catechists  have 
received  from  their  great  apostles,  uncle  and  nephew. 

1.  That  John,  thus  expressly  insisting  on  the  deity  of  Christ  in  the 
beginning  of  his  Gospel,  intended  to  disprove  and  condemn  sundry 
that  were  risen  up  in  those  days  denying  it,  or  asserting  the  creation 
or  making  of  the  world  to  another  demiurgus,  we  have  the  unques 
tionable  testimony  of  the  first  professors  of  the  religion  of  Jesus 
Christ,  with  as  much  evidence  and  clearness  of  truth  as  any  thing 
can  be  tendered  on  uncontrolled  tradition ;  which  at  least  will  give 
some  insight  into  the  intendment  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  words.3 

2.  That  by  6  Aoyog,  howsoever  rendered,  Verbum  or  Sermo,  or  on 
what  account  soever  he  be  so  called,  either  as  being  the  eternal  Word 
and  Wisdom  of  the  Father,  or  as  the  great  Kevealer  of  his  will  unto 
us  (which  yet  of  itself  is  not  a  sufficient  cause  of  that  appellation,  for 
others  also  reveal  the  will  of  God  unto  us,  Acts  xx.  27,  Heb.  i.  1), 
Jesus  Christ  is  intended,  is  on  all  hands  confessed,  and  may  be  unde 
niably  evinced  from  the  context.     This  o  A.6yog  came  into  the  world 
and  was  rejected  by  his  own,  verse  11 ;  yea,  expressly,  he  "  was  made 
flesh,"  and  was  "  the  only-begotten  of  the  Father/'  verse  14. 

1  "  Quid  vero  ad  primum  respondes  ? — In  loco  citato  nihil  habetur  de  ista  prseaetei- 
nitate,  cum  hie  principii  mentio  fiat,  quod  prae-seternitati  opponitur.  Printipii  vero 
vox  in  Scripturis  fere  semper  ad  subjectam  refertur  materiam,  ut  videre  est,  Dan.  viii.  1 ; 
Job.  xv.  27,  xvi.  4;  Act.  xi.  15:  cum  igitur  hie  subjecta  sit  materia  evangelium,  cujus 
descriptionem  suscepit  Johannes,  sine  dubio  per  vocem  hanc  principii,  principium  evan- 
gelii  Johannes  intellexit." 

J  Iren.  adv.  Haeres.  lib.  iii.  cap.  xi. ;  Epiphan.  lib.  i.  torn.  ii.  haeres.  27,  28,  30,  etc.,  lib. 
ii.  torn.  ii.  haeres.  69  ;  Theod.  Epitom.  Haeret.  lib.  ii. ;  Euseb.  Hist.  lib.  iii.  cap.  xxvii. 
"  Causam  post  alios  haec  scribendi  praecipuam  tradunt  omnes  (veteres),  ut  veneno  in 
Ecclesiam  jam  turn  sparso,  authoritate  sua,  quse  apud  omnes  Christianum  nomen  pro- 
fitentes  non  poUerat  non  esse  maxima,  medicinam  faceret." — Grot.  Praefat.  ad  Annotat. 
in  Evang.  Johan. 


8.  That  the  whole  of  our  argument  from  this  place  is  very  far  from 
consisting  in  that  expression,  "  In  the  beginning,"  though  that,  re 
lating  to  the  matter  whereof  the  apostle  treats,  doth  evidently  evince 
the  truth  pleaded  for.  It  is  part  of  our  catechists'  trade  so  to  divide 
the  words  of  Scripture  that  their  main  import  and  tendence  may  not 
be  perceived.  In  one  place  they  answer  to  the  first  words,  "  In  the 
beginning;"  in  another,  to  "He  was  with  God,  and  he  was  God;" 
in  a  third,  to  that,  "All  things  were  made  by  him ;"  in  a  fourth  (all  at 
a  great  distance  one  from  another),  to  "  The  Word  was  made  flesh:" 
which  desperate  course  of  proceeding  argues  that  their  cause  is  also 
desperate,  and  that  they  durst  not  meet  this  one  testimony,  as  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  placed  and  ordered  for  the  confirmation  of  our  faith, 
without  such  a  bold  mangling  of  the  text  as  that  instanced  in. 

4.  I  shall,  then,  insist  upon  the  whole  of  this  testimony  as  the 
words  are  placed  in  the  contexture  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  vindicate 
them  from  what,  in  several  places,  they  have  excepted  against  several 
parcels  of  them.  Thus,  then,  from  these  words  (these  divine  words, 
Avhose  very  reading  reclaimed  as  eminent  a  scholar  as  the  world  en 
joyed  in  his  days  from  atheism1)  we  proceed. 

He  that  was  in  the  beginning  before  the  creation  of  the  world, 
before  any  thing  of  all  things  that  are  made  was  made,  who  was 
then  with  God,  and  was  God,  who  made  all  things,  and  without 
whom  nothing  was  made,  in  whom  was  life, — he  is  God  by  nature, 
blessed  for  ever ;  nor  is  there,  in  the  whole  Scripture,  a  more  glorious 
and  eminent  description  of  God,  by  his  attributes,  names,  and  works, 
than  here  is  given  of  him  concerning  whom  all  these  things  are 
spoken.  But  now  all  this  is  expressly  affirmed  of  the  "  Word  that 
was  made  flesh;"  that  is,  confessedly,  of  Jesus  Christ:  therefore  he 
is  God  by  nature,  blessed  for  ever.  Unto  the  several  parts  of  this 
plain  and  evident  testimony,  in  several  places  they  except  several 
things ;  thinking  thereby  to  evade  that  strength  and  light  which  each 
part  yields  to  other  as  they  lie,  and  all  of  them  to  the  whole.  I  shall 
consider  them  in  order  as  they  come  to  hand. 

Against  that  expression,  "  In  the  beginning,"  they  except,  in  the 
place  mentioned  above,  that  it  doth  not  signify  pre-eternity,  which 
hath  no  beginning.  But, — 

1.  This  impedes  not  at  all  the  existence  of  Jesus  Christ  before 
the  creation,  although  it  denies  that  his  eternity  is  expressly  asserted. 
Now,  to  affirm  that  Christ  did  exist  before  the  whole  creation,  and 
made  all  things,  doth  no  less  prove  him  to  be  no  more  a  creature, 

1  "  Novum  Testamentum  diviiiitus  oblatum  aperio.  Aliud  agenti  exhibet  se  mihi 
OKpectu  primo  augustissimum  illud  caput  Johannis  evangelistas  et  apostoli,  In  prin 
ciple  erat  Ve.rbum.  Lego  partem  capitis,  et  ita  commoveor  legens,  ut  repente  diviuita~ 
tern  arguinenti,  et  script!  majestatem,  auctoritatemque  senserim,  longo  intervallo  omni 
bus  eloquentiae  humanse  viribus  pneeuntem.  Horrebat  corpus,  stupebat  animus,  et 
totum  ilium  diem  sic  afficiebar,  ut  qui  esscm,  ipsi  mihi  incertus  viderer  esse." — Fran- 
cisc.  Juiiius. 


but  the  eternal  God,  than  the  most  express  testimony  of  his  eternity 
doth  or  can  do.  2.  Though  eternity  has  no  beginning,  and  the 
sense  of  these  words  cannot  be,  "  In  the  beginning  of  eternity,"  yet 
eternity  is  before  all  things,  and  "  In  the  beginning"  may  be  the  de 
scription  of  eternity,  as  it  is  plainly,  Prov.  viii.  23.  "  From  everlast 
ing,"  and  "  In  the  beginning,  before  the  earth  was,"  are  of  the  same 
import.  And  the  Scripture  saying  that  "  In  the  beginning  the  Word 
was,"  not  "  was  made,"  doth  as  evidently  express  eternity  as  it  doth 
in  these  other  phrases  of,  "  Before  the  world  was,"  or  "  Before  the 
foundation  of  the  world,"  which  more  than  once  it  insists  on,  John 
xvii.  5.  3.  By  "  In  the  beginning"  is  intended  before  the  creation 
of  all  things.  What  will  it  avail  our  catechists  if  it  do  not  expressly 
denote  eternity?  Why,  the  word  "beginning"  is  to  be  interpreted 
variously,  according  to  the  subject-matter  spoken  of,  as  Gen.  i.  1 ; 
which  being  here  the  gospel,  it  is  the  beginning  of  the  gospel  that 
is  intended!  But, — • 

Be  it  agreed  that  the  word  "beginning"  is  to  be  understood  accord 
ing  to  the  subject-matter  whereunto  it  is  applied,  yet  that  the  apostle 
doth  firstly  and  nextly  treat  of  the  gospel,  as  to  the  season  of  its 
preaching,  is  most  absurd.  He  treats  evidently  and  professedly  of  the 
person  of  the  author  of  the  gospel,  of  the  Word  that  was  God  and  was 
made  flesh.  And  that  this  cannot  be  wrested  to  the  sense  intended 
is  clear;  for, — 1.  The  apostle  evidently  alludes  to  the  first  words  of 
Genesis,  "  In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth;" 
and  the  Syriac  translation  from  the  Hebrew  here  places  J"i^13.  So 
here,  "In  the  beginning  the  Word  made  all  things."  2.  The  following 
words,  "  The  Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God,"  manifest 
the  intendment  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  be,  to  declare  what  and  where 
the  Word  was  before  the  creation  of  the  world,  even  with  God.  3.  The 
testimony  that  he  was  God  in  the  beginning  will  no  way  agree  with 
this  gloss.  Take  his  being  God  in  their  sense,  yet  they  deny  that  he 
was  God  in  the  beginning  of  the  gospel  or  before  his  suffering,  as 
hath  been  showed.  4.  The  sense  given  by  the  Socinians  to  this 
place  is  indee.d  senseless.  "  In  tlie  beginning"  say  they,  "  that  is, 
when  the  gospel  began  to  be  preached  by  John  Baptist"  (which  is 
plainly  said  to  be  before  the  world  was  made),  "the  Word,  or  the  man 
Jesus  Christ"  (the  Word  being  afterward  said  to  be  made  flesh,  after 
this  whole  description  of  him  as  the  Word),  "was  with  God,  so  hidden 
as  that  he  was  known  only  to  God"  (which  is  false,  for  he  was  known 
to  his  mother,  to  Joseph,  to  John  Baptist,  to  Simeon,  Anna,  and  to 
others),  "  and  the  Word  was  God;  that  is,  God  appointed  that  he 
should  be  so  afterward,  or  made  God"  (though  it  be  said  he  was  God 
then  when  he  was  with  God).  "  And  all  things  were  made  by  him; 
the  new  creature  was  made  by  him ;  or  the  world  by  his  preaching, 
and  teaching,  and  working  miracles,  was  made,  or  reformed"  (that  is, 


something  was  mended  by  him).  Such  interpretations  we  may  at  any 
time  be  supplied  withal  at  an  easy  rate.  5.  To  view  it  a  little  farther : 
"  In  the  beginning, — that  is,  when  John  preached  Jesus,  and  said, 
'Behold  the  Lamb  of  God/ — was  the  Word,  or  Jesus  was;"  that 
is,  he  was  when  John  preached  that  he  was.  "  Egregiarn  vero  lau- 
dem !"  He  was  when  he  was!  "  The  Word  was  in  the  beginning;" 
that  is,  Jesus  was  flesh  and  blood,  and  then  was  afterward  made 
flesh,  and  dwelt  among  us,  when  he  had  dwelt  amongst  us !  And 
this  is  that  interpretation  which  Faustus  Socinus,  receiving  from  his 
uncle  Laelius,  first  set  up  upon,  in  the  strength  whereof  he  went  forth 
unto  all  the  abominations  which  afterward  he  so  studiously  vented. 

Passing  by  these  two  weighty  and  most  material  passages  of  this 
testimony,  "  The  Word  was  God,"  and  "  The  Word  was  with  God," 
the  one  evidencing  his  oneness  of  nature  with,  and  the  other  his  dis 
tinctness  of  personality  from,  his  Father,  our  catechists,  after  an  in 
terposition  of  near  twenty  pages,  fix  upon  verse  3,  and  attempt  to 
pervert  the  express  words  and  intendment  of  it,  having  cut  it  off 
from  its  dependence  on  what  went  before,  that  evidently  gives  light 
into  the  aim  of  the  Holy  Ghost  therein.  Their  words  concerning 
this  verse  are, — 

Q.  Declare  to  me  with  what  testimonies  they  contend  to  prove  that  Christ  cre 
ated  the  heaven  and  the  earth  ? 

A.  With  those  where  it  is  written,  that  "  by  him  all  things  were  made,  and 
without  him  was  nothing  made  that  was  made,"  and  "  the  world  was  made  by 
him,"  John  i.  3,  10;  as  also  Col.  i.  16;  Heb.  i.  2,  10-12. 

Q.  But  how  dost  thou  answer  to  the  first  testimony? 

A.I.  It  is  not,  in  the  first  testimony,  they  were  created,  but  they  were  "made." 
2.  John  says  "  They  were  made  by  him;"  which  manner  of  speaking  doth  not  ex 
press  him  who  is  the  first  cause  of  any  thing,  but  the  second  or  mediate  cause. 
Lastly,  The  word  "all  things"  is  not  taken  for  all  things  universally,  but  is  alto 
gether  related  to  the  subject-matter;  which  is  most  frequent  in  the  Scriptures, 
especially  of  the  New  Testament,  whereof  there  is  a  signal  example,  2  Cor.  v.  17, 
wherein  there  is  a  discourse  of  a  thing  very  like  to  this  whereof  John  treats,  where 
it  is  said  "  All  things  are  made  new,"  whereas  it  is  certain  that  there  are  many 
things  which  are  not  made  new.  Now,  whereas  the  subject-matter  in  John  is  the 
gospel,  it  appeareth  that  this  word  "  all  things"  is  to  be  received  only  of  all  those 
things  which  belong  to  the  gospel. 

Q.  Hut  why  doth  John  add,  that  "  without  him  nothing  was  made  that  was 

A.  John  added  these  words  that  he  might  the  better  illustrate  those  before  spoken, 
"All  things  were  made  by  him;"  which  seem  to  import  that  all  those  things  were 
made  by  the  Word  or  Son  of  God,  although  some  of  them,  and  those  of  great 
moment,  were  of  such  sort  as  were  not  done  by  him  but  the  apostles, — as  the  call- 
•ing  of  the  Gentiles,  the  abolishing  of  legal  ceremonies :  for  although  these  things 
had  their  original  from  the  preaching  and  works  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  yet  they  were 
not  perfected  by  Christ  himself,  but  by  his  apostles;  but  yet  not  without  him,  for 
the  apostles  administered  all  things  in  his  name  and  authority,  as  the  Lord  him 
self  said,  "  Without  me  ye  can  do  nothing,"  John  xv.  5.1 

1  "  Expone  igitur  mihi  quibus  testimoniis  approbare  contendunt  Christum  ccdum 


Thus  to  the  third  verse,  of  which  afterward.  We  shall  quickly 
see  how  these  men  are  put  to  their  shifts  to  escape  the  sword  of  this 
witness,  which  stands  in  the  way  to  cut  them  off  in  their  journeying 
to  curse  the  church  and  people  of  God  by  denying  the  deity  of  their 
blessed  Saviour. 

The  connection  of  the  words  is  wholly  omitted,  "  He  was  God,  and 
he  was  in  the, beginning  with  God,  and  all  things  were  made  by 
him/'  The  words  are  an  illustration  of  his  divine  nature  by  divine 
power  and  works.  He  was  God,  and  he  made  all  things.  "  He  that 
made  all  things  is  God,"  Heb.  iii.  4;  "  The  Word  made  all  things," 
John  i.  3 :  therefore  he  is  God.  Let  us  see  what  is  answered. 

1.  "It  is  not  said  they  were  created  by  him,  but '  made.' "   But  the 
word  here  used  by  John  is  the  same  that  in  sundry  places  the  LXX. 
(whom  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  followed)  used  about  the 
creation ;  as  Gen.  i.  3,  Ka/  sJvsv  6  Qtbg,  Tfvrid^ru   <pue,  xa/  iyivero  <pu$, 
and  verse  6,  'Eyivtro  ertpiupa..    And  if,  as  it  is  affirmed,  he  was  in  the 
beginning  (before  all  things),  and  made  them  all,  he  made  them  out 
of  nothing ;  that  is,  he  created  them.     To  create  is  but  to  produce 
something   out  of  nothing,  "  nothing "   supplying  the  term  from 
whence  of  their  production.     But, — 

2.  "  They  are  said  to  be  made  '  by  him:'  it  is  Bi'  airov,  which  de 
notes  not  the  principal,  but  mediate  or  instrumental  cause."     But 
it  is  most  evident  that  these  men  care  not  what  they  say,  so  they 
may  say  something  that  they  think  will  trouble  them  whom  they 

(1.)  This  might  help  the  Arians,  who  fancied  Christ  to  be  created 
or  made  before  all  things,  and  to  have  been  the  instrumental  cause 
whereby  God  created  all  other  things ;  but  how  this ,  concerns  them 

et  terram  creasse  ? — lis  ubi  ecriptum  extat,  quod  per  eum  omrda  facia  sint,  et  fine  eo 
faction  sit  nihil  quad  factum  sit,  John  i.  3 ;  et  iterum,  Mundus  per  if  sum  foetus  est,  ver. 
10,  et  rursus,  quod  in  eo  omnia  sunt  condita,  etc.,  Col.  L  16,  et  quod  Deua  per  eum 
scecula  fecerit,  Heb.  i.  2,  denique,  et  ex  eo,  Tu  in  principio,  etc.,  ver.  10-12. 

"  Qui  vero  ad  primum  testimonium  respondes  ? — Primum,  non  habetur  in  primo  testi- 
monio  creata  sunt,  verum  facta  sunt.  Deinde,  ait  Johannes,  facta  esse  per  eum,  qui 
modus  loquendi,  non  eum  qui  prima  causa  sit  alicujus  rei,  verum  causam  secundam 
aut  mediam  exprimit.  Denique,  vox  omnia  non  pro  omnibus  prorsus  rebus  hie  sumitur, 
sed  ad  subjectam  materiam  restringitur  omnino,  quod  frequentissimum  est  in  libris 
divinis,  praesertim  Novi  Testament!,  cujus  rei  exemplum  singulare  extat,  2  Cor.  v.  17, 
in  quo  habetur  sermo  de  re,  huic,  de  qua  Johannes  tractat,  admodum  simili,  ubi  dicitur, 
omnia  nova  facta  esse,  cum  certum  sit  multa  extare,  quae  nova  facta  non  sunt.  Cum 
vero  subjecta  apud  Johannem  materia  sit  evangelium,  apparet  vocem  omnia  de  iis  omni 
bus  quae  quoquo  modo  ad  evangelium  pertinent  accipi  debere. 

"Cur  vero  addidit  Johannes,  quod  sine  eo  factum  est  nihil  quod  factum  est  ? — Addidit 
haec  Johannes,  ut  eo  melius  illustraret  ilia  superiora,  Omnia  per  ipsum  facta  sunt,  quas 
cam  vim  habere  videntur,  per  solum  Verbum  vel  Filium  Dei  omnia  ilia  facta  esse,  licet 
ejus  generis  qusedem,  et  quidem  magni  momenti,  non  per  ipsum,  verum  per  apostolos 
facta  fuerint, — ut  est  vocatio  Gentium,  et  legalium  ceremoniarum  abolitio :  licet  enim 
hsec  originem  ab  ipsis  sermonibus  et  operibus  Domini  Jesu  traxerint,  ad  efiectum  tamen 
non  sunt  perducta  per  ipsum  Christum,  sed  per  ipsius  apostolos,  non  tamen  sine  ipso; 
apostoli  enim  omnia  nomine  et  authoritate  ipsius  administrarunt,  ut  etiam  ipse  Do- 
minus  ait,  Sine  me  nihil  facere  potestis,  Job.,  xv.  5." 


to  insist  on  who  deny  that  Christ  had  any  existence  at  all  before  the 
world  was  some  thousands  of  years  old  is  not  easy  to  be  apprehended. 

(2.)  In  their  own  sense  this  is  not  to  the  purpose,  but  expressly 
contradictory  to  what  they  offer  in  the  last  place,  by  way  of  answer 
to  the  latter  part  of  the  third  verse.  Here  they  say  he  is  not  the 
principal  efficient  cause,  but  the  second  or  mediate;  there,  that  all 
things  were  either  done  by  him  or  in  his  name  and  authority,  which 
certainly  denotes  the  principal  cause  of  the  things  done.  But, — 

(3.)  This  very  expression  is  sundry  times  used  concerning  God  the 
Father  himself,  whom  our  catechists  will  not  therefore  deny  to  have 
been  the  principal  efficient  cause  of  the  things  ascribed  to  him :  Rom. 
xi.  36,  "From  him,  and  di"  aurov,  by  him  are  all  things;"  1  Cor.  i.  9, 
"  God  is  faithful,  di'  o5,  by  whom  ye  were  called;"  Gal.  i.  1,  "Paul, 
an  apostle,  not  of  men,  neither  by  man,  but  dia  'ljj<rou  Xpiarou,  nai 
og,  by  Jesus  Christ  and  God  the  Father;"  Eph.  i.  1,  A/a 

Qsou,  "  By  the  will  of  God."     So  that  this  also  is  frivolous. 
Thus  far  we  have  nothing  to  the  purpose.     But, — 

3.  " '  All  things'  are  to  be  referred  to  the  gospel,  all  things  of  the 
gospel  whereof  John  treats ;  so  are  the  words  to  be  restrained  by  the 
subject-matter."     But, — 

(1.)  This  is  merely  begged.  John  speaks  not  one  word  of  the  gos 
pel  as  such,  gives  no  description  of  it,  its  nature  or  effects ;  but  evi 
dently,  plainly,  and  directly  speaks  of  the  Word  that  was  God,  and 
that  made  all  things,  describing  him  in  his  eternity,  his  works,  his 
incarnation,  his  employment,  his  coming  into  the  world,  and  his 
business;  and  treats  of  the  gospel,  or  the  declaration  of  the  will  of 
God  by  Jesus  Christ,  distinctly  afterward,  from  verse  15  and  forwards. 

(2.)  For  the  expression,  2  Cor.  v.  17,  "All  things  are  become  new," 
it  is  expressly  restrained  to  the  "  new  creature,"  to  them  that  are  "  in 
Christ  Jesus ;"  but  as  to  this  general  expression  here,  there  is  no  colour 
why  it  should  be  so  restrained,  the  expression  itself  everywhere  signi 
fying  the  creation  of  all  things.  See  Gen.  ii.  1,  2 ;  Ps.  xxxiii.  6,  cxxi.  2 ; 
Isa  xxxvii.  16,  xliv.  24,  Ixvi.  1,  2;  Jer.  xxxii.  17;  Acts  xiv.  15,  xvii.  24 

And  this  is  it  which  they  plead  to  the  first  part  of  the  verse,  "  All 
things  were  made  by  him." 

4.  The  other  expression,  they  say,  is  added  to  manifest  that  "  what 
was  done  after  by  the  apostles  was  not  done  without  him;  and  that 
is  the  meaning  of  these  words,  '  And  without  him  was  not  any  thing 
made  that  was  made.'"    But, — 

(1.)  Their  vpurov  -^wdog,  of  referring  the  whole  passage  to  the  de 
scription  of  the  gospel,  whereof  there  is  not  the  least  tittle  nor  inti 
mation  in  the  text,  being  removed  out  of  the  way,  this  following  fig 
ment  falls  of  itself. 

(2.)  This  gloss  is  expressly  contrary  to  the  text.  The  "  all  things" 
here  mentioned  are  the  "  all  things"  that  were  made  in  the  beginning 


of  the  world,  but  this  gloss  refers  it  to  the  things  made  in  the  erW. 
of  the  world. 

(3.)  It  is  contradictory  to  itself,  for  by  the  "beginning"  they  un 
derstand  the  beginning  of  the  gospel,  or  the  first  preaching  of  it,  but 
the  things  that  they  say  here  were  made  by  Christ  are  things  that 
were  done  after  his  ascension. 

(4.)  It  is  true,  the  apostles  wrought  not  any  miracles,  effected  no 
mighty  works,  but  by  the  presence  of  Christ  with  them  (though  the 
text  cited  to  prove  it,  John  xv.  5,  be  quite  of  another  importance, 
as  speaking  of  gospel  obedience,  not  works  of  miracles  or  conver 
sions)  ;  but  that  those  works  of  theirs,  or  his  by  them,  are  here  in 
tended,  is  not  offered  to  proof  by  our  catechists.  And  this  is  the 
sense  of  the  words  they  give :  "  Christ  in  the  beginning  of  the  gospel 
made  all  things,  or  all  things  were  made  by  him,  even  those  which 
he  made  by  others  after  his  ascension  into  heaven;"  or  thus,  "All 
things,  that  is,  some  things,  were  made,  that  is,  mended,  by  him, 
that  is,  the  apostles,  in  the  beginning  of  the  gospel,  that  is,  after 
his  ascension." 

(5.)  Our  sense  of  the  words  is  plain  and  obvious.  Says  the  apostle, 
"He  who  was  in  the  beginning,  and  was  God,  made  all  things;" 
which  he  first  expresseth  positively,  and  then  by  an  universal  nega 
tive  confirms  and  explains  what  was  before  asserted  in  an  universal 
affirmative,  "  Without  him  was  not  any  thing  made  that  was  made." 

And  this  is  the  sum  of  what  they  have  to  except  against  this  part  of 
our  testimony,  than  which  nothing  can  be  more  vain  and  frivolous. 

The  10th  verse  is  also  by  them  taken  under  consideration,  and 
these  words  therein,  "  The  world  was  made  by  him;"  against  which 
this  is  their  procedure: — 

Q.   What  dost  thou  answer  to  the  second  ? 

A.  1.  That  John  doth  not  write  here  that  the  world  was  created,  but  "made." 
2.  He  uses  the  same  manner  of  speech  which  signifieth  the  mediate  cause ;  for  he 
saith  "  The  world  was  made  by  him."  Lastly,  This  word  mundus,  the  world,  as 
others  of  the  same  import,  doth  not  only  denote  heaven  and  earth,  but,  besides  other 
significations,  it  either  signifieth  human  kind,  as  the  present  place  manifesteth,  "  He 
was  in  the  world,  and  the  world  knew  him  not,"  and  John  xii.  19,  or  also  future 
immortality,  as  Heb.  i.  6 ;  which  is  to  be  understood  of  the  world  to  come,  as  it 
appears  from  chap,  ii.,  where  he  saith,  "  He  hath  not  put  the  world  to  come  into 
subjection  to  the  angels,  of  which  we  speak,"  but  he  had  nowhere  spoken  of  it  but 
chap.  i.  6.  Furthermore,  you  have  a  place,  chap.  x.  5,  where,  speaking  of  Christ, 
he  saith,  "  Wherefore  coming  into  the  world,  he  saith,  Sacrifice  and  offering  thou 
wouldest  not  have,  but  a  body,"  etc. ;  where,  seeing  it  is  evident  that  he  speaks 
of  that  world  into  which  Jesus  being  entered  was  made  our  priest,  as  all  the  cir 
cumstances  demonstrate,  it  appears  that  he  speaks  not  of  the  present,  but  of  tho 
world  to  come,  seeing,  chap.  viii.  4,  he  had  said  of  Christ,  "  If  he  were  on  earth 
he  should  not  be  a  priest."1 

1  "  Quid  vero  respondes  ad  secundum  ? — Primum,  quod  hie  non  scribat  Johannes 
mundum  esse  creatum,  sed  factum.  Deinde,  eo  loquendi  modo  utitur,  qui  mediam 
causam  designat,  ait  enim,  mundum  per  eum  factum.  Denique,  ha?c  vox  mun<iusi 


The  first  two  exceptions  have  been  already  cashiered ;  those  which 
follow  are  of  as  little  weight  or  consideratioa:  for, — 

1.  It  is  confessed  that  the  word  "  world"  hath  in  Scripture  various 
acceptations,  and  is  sometimes  taken  for  men  in  the  world ;  but  that 
it  can  be  so  taken  when  the  world  is  said  to  be  made  or  created,  when 
it  is  equivalent  to  all  things,  when  it  is  proposed  as  a  place  where- 
unto  one  comes,  and  where  he  is,  as  is  the  state  of  the  expression 
here,  there  can  nothing  more  absurd  or  foolish  be  imagined. 

2.  Heb.  i.  6  speaks  not  of  the  world  to  come,  nor  is  there  any  place 
in  the  Scripture  where  the  word  "world"  doth  signify  immortality 
or  the  world  to  come,  nor  any  thing  looking  that  way.     Heb.  ii.  5, 
mention  is  made  not  simply  of  the  world,  but  of  the  "  world  to  come ;" 
nor  doth  that  expression  of  the  apostle  relate  unto  that  of  chap.  i.  6, 
where  the  word  "  world"  is  used,  but  to  what  goes  before  and  after  in 
the  same  chapter,  where  the  thing  itself  is  insisted  on  in  other  terms. 
Nor  is  future  immortality  intended  there,  by  the  "  world  to  come," 
but  the  present  state  of  the  Christian  church,  called  the  "  world  to 
come,"  in  reference  to  that  of  the  Jews,  which  was  past  in  that  use 
of  speech  whereby  it  was  expressed  before  it  came;  as  also  chap, 
vi.  5.   Nor  is  the  "  world  to  come"  life  eternal  or' blessed  immortality; 
life  is  to  be  had  in  it,  but  "  immortality"  and  the  "  world  to  come"  are 
not  the  same.    Nor  is  that  world  ever  said  to  be  made,  nor  is  it  any 
where  described  as  made  already,  but  as  to  come :  as  Matt.  xii.  32 ; 
Luke  xviii.  30,  xx.  35 ;  Eph.  i.  21.   Nor  can  it  be  said  of  the  world  to 
come  that  it  knew  not  Christ,  as  it  is  of  this  that  he  made;  nor 
can  Christ  be  said  to  come  into  that  world  in  the  beginning,  which 
he  did  not  until  after  his  resurrection ;  nor  is  the  world  to  come  that 
whereof  it  is  said  in  the  next  verse,  which  expounds  this,  "  He  came 
fie  TO.  7dia,"  "to  his  own,"  for  then  "'his  own,"  o/  7<5/o/,  "knew  him 
not."   So  that  there  is  not  the  least  colour  or  pretence  of  this  foppery 
that  here  they  would  evade  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Ghost  withal. 

3.  These  words,  Heb.  x.  5,  "  Coming  into  the  world,  he  saith,"  etc., 
do  not  in  the  least  intimate  any  thing  of  the  world  to  come,  but 
express  the  present  world,  into  which  Christ  came  when  God  pre 
pared  a  body  for  him  at  his  incarnation  and  birth ;  which  was  in  order 

quemadmodum  et  aliae  quae  prorsus  idem  in  Scripturis  valent,  non  solum  coelum  et 
terrain  denotat,  verum  prseter  alias  significationes,  vel  genus  humanum  designat,  u* 
locus  pnesens  ostendit,  ubi  ait,  In  mundo  erat,  et  mundus  eum  non  agnovit,  John  i.  10, 
et  Mundus  eum  secutus  est,  John  xii.  19,  aut  etiam  futuram  immortalitatem,  ut  apparet, 
Heb.  i.  6,  ubi  ait,  Et  eum  iterum  introdudt  primogenitum  in  mundum,  ait,  Et  adorent  eum 
omncs  angeli  Dd,  quod  de  futuro  mundo  accipi  apparet  e  cap.  ii.  ejusdem  epistolae,  ubi 
ait,  Etenim  non  angeUs  subjecit  miendum  futurum,  de  quo  loquimur,  at  nusquam  de  eo 
locutus  fuerat,  nisi  ver.  6,  cap.  i.  Praeterea,  habes  locum,  cap.  x.  ver.  5,  ubi  de  Christo 
loquens,  ait,  Propterea  ingrediens  in  mundum,  ait,  Hostiam  et  oblationem  noluisti,  verum 
corpus  adaptasti  mild;  ubi  cum  palam  sit  eum  loqui  de  mundo  in  quern  ingressus  Jesus, 
sacerdos  noster  factus  est  (ut  circumstantise  omnes  demonstrant)  apparet,  non  de  prae- 
senti,  sed  de  futuro  mundo  agi,  quandoquidem,  cap.  viii.  ver.  4,  de  Christo  dixerat,  Si 
in  terris  esset,  ne  sacerdos  quidem  esset." 


to  the  sacrifice  which  he  afterward  offered  in  this  world,  as  shall  l>o 
evidently  manifested  when  we  come  to  the  consideration  of  tho 
priesthood  of  Christ. 

It  remains  only  that  we  hear  their  sense  of  these  words,  which 
they  give  as  followeth : — 

Q.  But  what  dost  thou  understand  by  these  words,  "  The  world  was  made  by 
him"  ? 

A.  A  twofold  sense  may  be  given  of  them : — First,  that  human  kind  was  reformed 
by  Christ,  and  as  it  were  made  again,  because  he  brought  life,  and  that  eternal,  to 
human  kind,  which  was  lost,  and  was  subject  to  eternal  death  (which  also  John 
upbraideth  the  world  withal,  which  being  vindicated  by  Christ  from  destruction 
acknowledged  him  not,  but  contemned  and  rejected  him) ;  for  that  is  the  manner 
of  the  Hebrew  speech,  that  in  such  terms  of  speaking,  the  words  to  "  make"  and 
"  create"  are  as  much  as  to  "  make  again"  or  to  "create  again,"  because  that  tongue 
•wants  those  words  that  are  called  compounds.  The  latter  sense  is,  that  that  im 
mortality  which  we  expect  is,  as  to  us,  made  by  Christ;  as  the  same  is  called  "  the 
world  to  come"  in  respect  of  us,  although  it  be  present  to  Christ  and  the  angels." r 

1.  That  these  expositions  are  destructive  to  one  another  is  evi 
dent,  and  yet  which  of  them  to  adhere  unto  our  catechists  know  not, 
such  good  builders  are  they  for  to  establish  men  in  the  faith.     Pull 
down  they  will,  though  they  have  nothing  to  offer  in  the  room  of 
what  they  endeavour  to  destroy. 

2.  That  the  latter  sense  is  not  intended  was  before  evinced.     The 
world  that  was  made  in  the  beginning,  into  which  Christ  came,  in 
which  he  was,  which  knew  him  not,  which  is  said  to  be  made,  is  a 
world,  is  not  immortality  or  life  eternal ;  nor  is  there  any  thing  in 
the  context  that  should  in  the  least  give  countenance  to  such  an  ab 
surd  gloss. 

3.  Much  less  is  the  first  sense  of  the  words  tolerable;  for, — 

(1.)  It  is  expressly  contradictory  to  the  text.  "  He  made  the  world," 
that  is,  he  reformed  it;  and,  "  The  world  knew  him  not,"  when  the 
world  is  not  reformed  but  by  the  knowledge  of  him ! 

(2.)  To  be  made  doth  nowhere  simply  signify  to  be  renewed  or  re 
formed,  unless  it  be  joined  with  other  expressions  restraining  its 
significancy  to  such  renovation. 

(3.)  The  world  was  not  renewed  by  Christ  whilst  he  was  in  it;  nor 
can  it  be  said  to  be  renewed  by  him  only  on  the  account  of  laying 
the  foundation  of  its  renovation  in  his  doctrine.  "  'By  him  the  world 

1  "  Quid  vero  per  hsec,  Mundus  per  eumfactus  est,  intelligis  ? — Duplex  eorum  sensus 
dari  potest :  Prior,  quod  genus  humanum  per  Christum  reformatum,  et  quasi  denuo 
factum  sit,  eo  quod  ille  generi  humano,  quod  perierat,  et  seternae  morti  subjectum  erat, 
vitam  attulit,  eamque  sempiternam-  (quod  etiam  mundo  Johannes  exprobrat,  qui  per 
Christum  ab  interitu  vindicatus,  eum  non  agnoverit,  sed  spreverit  et  rejecerit) ;  is 
enim  mos  Hebraic!  sermonis,  quod  in  ejusmodi  loquendi  modis,  verba  facere,  creare, 
idem  valeant,  quod  denuo  facere,  et  denuo  creare,  idque  propterea,  quod  verbis  quse 
composita  vocant  ea  liugua  careat.  Posterior  vero  sensus  est,  quod  ilia  immortalitas 
quam  expectamus  per  Christum,  quantum,  ad  nos,  facta  sit;  quemadmodum  eadera 
futurum  sceculum,  habita  ratione  nostri,  vocatur,  licet  jam  Christo  et  angelis  sit 


•was  made;'  that  is,  he  preached  that  doctrine  whereby  some  in  the 
world  were  to  be  reformed."  The  world  that  Christ  made  knew  him 
not;  but  the  renewed  world  know  him. 

4.  The  Hebraism  of  "  making"  for  "  re-forming"  is  commonly  pre 
tended,  without  any  instance  for  its  confirmation.  John  wrote  in 
Greek,  which  language  abounds  with  compositions  above  any  other 
in  the  world,  and  such  as  on  all  occasions  he  makes  use  of. 

There  is  one  passage  more  that  gives  strength  to  the  testimony 
insisted  on,  confirming  the  existence  of  Christ  in  his  divine  na 
ture  antecedently  to  his  incarnation,  and  that  is  verse  14,  "The 
Word  was  made  flesh."  Who  the  Word  is,  and  what,  we  have  heard. 
He  who  was  in  the  beginning,  who  was  God,  and  was  with  God,  who 
made  all  things,  who  made  the  world,  in  whom  was  light  and  life, 
he  was  made  flesh, — flesh,  so  as  that  thereupon  he  dwelt  amongst 
men,  and  conversed  with  them.  How  he  was,  and  how  he  was  said 
to  be,  made  flesh,  I  have  declared  in  the  consideration  of  his  eternal 
sonship,  and  shall  not  again  insist  thereon.  This,  after  the  interpo 
sition  of  sundry  questions,  our  catechists  take  thus  into  considera 
tion  : — 

Q.  How  do  they  prove  Christ  to  have  been  incarnate  ? 

A.  From  those  testimonies  where,  according  to  their  translation,  it  is  read, 
"  The  Word  was  made  flesh,"  John  i.  14,  etc. 

Q.  How  dost  thou  answer  it  ? 

A.  On  this  account,  because  in  that  testimony  it  is  not  said  (as  they  speak) 
God  was  incarnate,  or  the.  divine  nature  assumed  the  human.  "  The  Word  was 
made  flesh"  is  one  thing,  and  God  was  incarnate,  or  the  divine  nature  assumed 
the  human,  another.  Besides,  these  words,  "  The  Word  was  made  flesh,"  or 
rather,  "  The  Speech  was  made  flesh,"  may  and  ought  to  be  rendered,  "  The 
Word  was  flesh."  That  it  may  be  so  rendered  appears  from  the  testimonies  in 
which  the  word  iy'inn  (which  is  here  translated  "  was  made")  is  found  rendered 
by  the  word  "  was,"  as  in  this  chapter,  verse  6,  and  Luke  xxiv.  19,  etc.  Also,  that  it 
ought  to  be  so  rendered  the  order  of  John's  words  teacheth,  who  should  have  spoken 
very  inconveniently,  '•  The  Word  was  made  flesh," — that  is,  as  our  adversaries  in 
terpret  it,  the  divine  nature  assumed  the  human, — after  he  had  spoken  those  things 
of  the  Word  which  followed  the  nativity  of  the  man  Christ  Jesus :  such  as  are 
these,  "John  bare  witness  of  him;"  "he  came  into  the  world;"  "he  was  not  received 
of  his  own ;"  that  "  to  them  that  received  him,  he  gave  power  to  become  the  sons 
of  God." » 

1  "E  quibus  vero  testimoniis  Scripturse  demonstrare  conantur  Christum  (ut  loqmm- 
tur)  incarnatum  esse? — Ex  iis  ubi  secundum  eorum  versionem  legitur  Verbum  caro 
factum  esse,  Job.  i.  14;  Phil.  ii.  6,  7;  1  Tim.  iii.  16,  etc. 

"  Quomodo  ad  primum  respondes? — Ea  ratione,  qxiod  in  eo  testimonio  non  habeatur 
Deum  (ut  loquuntur)  incarnatum  esse,  aut  quod  natura  divina  assumpserit  humanam. 
Aliud  enim  est,  Verbum  caro  factum  est,  aliud,  Deus  incarnatus  est  (ut  loquuntur)  vcl 
natura  divina  assumpsit  humanam.  Praeterea,  haec  verba,  Verbum  caro  factum  est,  vel 
potius,  Sermo  caro  factus  est,  possunt  et  debent  ita  reddi,  Sermo  caro  fuit.  Posse  ita 
reddi,  e  testimoniis  in  quibus  vox  ly'mra  (quae  hie  per  factum  est  translata  est)  verbo 
fuit  reddita  invenitur,  apparet;  ut  in  eodem  cap.,  ver.  6,  et  Luc.  xxiv.  19  :  Fuit  homo 
missus  a  Deo,  etc.  ;  et,  Qui  fuit  vir  propheta,  etc.  Debere  vero  reddi  per  verbum  fuit, 
ordo  verborum  Johannis  docet,  qui  valde  inconvenienter  loquutus  fuisset,  Sermoncm 
earnem  factum  esse, — id  est,  ut  adversarii  interpretantur,  naturam  divinain  assumpsisse 

VOL.  XIL  15 


This  is  the  last  plea  they  use  in  this  case.  The  dying  groans  of 
their  perishing  cause  are  in  it,  which  will  provide  them  neither  with 
succour  nor  relief;  for, — 

1.  It  is  not  words  or  expressions  that  we  contend  about.     Grant 
the  thing  pleaded  for,  and  we  will  not  contend  with  any  living  about 
the  expressions  wherein  it  is  by  any  man  delivered.    By  the  "  incar 
nation  of  the  Son  of  God,"  and  by  the  "  divine  nature  assuming  the 
human,"  we  intend  no  more  than  what  is  here  asserted, — the  Word, 
who  was  God,  was  made  flesh. 

2.  All  they  have  to  plead  to  the  thing  insisted  on  is,  that  the  word 
ty'snro  may,  yea  ought  to  be,  translated  fuit,  "  was,"  and  not  factus 
est,  "  was  made."     But, — 

(1.)  Suppose  it  should  be  translated  "was."what  would  it  avail  them? 
He  that  was  a  man  was  made  a  man.  In  that  sense  it  expresses 
what  he  was,  but  withal  denotes  how  he  came  so  to  be.  He  who  was 
the  Word  before  was  also  a  man.  Let  them  show  us  any  other  way 
how  he  became  so  but  only  by  being  made  so,  and,  upon  a  suppo 
sition  of  this  new  translation,  they  may  obtain  something.  But, — 

(2.)  How  will  they  prove  that  it  may  be  so  much  as  rendered  by 
fuit,  "  was."  They  tell  you  it  is  so  in  two  other  places  in  the 
New  Testament ;  but  doth  that  prove  that  it  may  so  much  as  be  so 
rendered  here  ?  The  proper  sense  and  common  usage  of  it  is,  "  was 
made,"  and  because  it  is  once  or  twice  used  in  a  peculiar  sense,  may 
it  be  so  rendered  here,  where  nothing  requires  that  it  be  turned  aside 
from  its  most  usual  acceptation,  yea  much  enforcing  it  thereunto  ? 

(3.)  That  it  ought  to  be  rendered  by  fuit,  "  was,"  they  plead  the 
mentioning  before  of  things  done  after  Christ's  incarnation  (as  we 
call  it),  so  that  it  cannot  be  "  He  was  made  flesh."  But, — 

[1.]  Will  they  say  that  this  order  is  observed  by  the  apostle, — that 
that  which  is  first  done  is  first  expressed  as  to  all  particulars  ?  What, 
then,  becomes  of  their  interpretation  who  say  "  The  Word  was  made 
God  by  his  exaltation,  and  made  flesh  in  his  humiliation  ?"  and  yet 
how  much  is  that  which  in  their  sense  was  last  expressed  before 
that  which  went  before  it  ?  Or  will  they  say,  in  him  was  the  life  of 
man  before  he  was  made  flesh,  when  the  life  of  man,  according  to 
them,  depends  on  his  resurrection  solely,  which  was  after  he  ceased 
to  be  flesh  in  their  sense  ?  Or  what  conscience  have  these  men,  who 
in  their  disputes  will  object  that  to  the  interpretation  of  others  which 
they  must  receive  and  embrace  for  the  establishing  of  their  own  ? 

[2.]  The  order  of  the  words  is  most  proper.  John  having  asserted 
the  deity  of  Christ,  with  some  general  concomitants  and  consequences 

butnanam, — postquam  ea  jam  de  illo  Sermone  exposuisset,  quse  nativitatem  hominis  Jesu 
Christ!  subsecuta  sunt :  ut  sunt  haec,  Johannem  Baptistam  de  illo  testatum  esse;  ilium 
in  mundofuisse;  a  suis  non  fuisse  receptumj  quod  iis,  a  quibus  receptus  fuisset,  potestatem 
dedcrit,  ut  filii  Dei  fierent. 


of  the  dispensation  wherein  he  undertakes  to  be  a  mediator,  in  his 
14th  verse  enters  particularly  upon  a  description  of  his  entrance  upon 
his  employment,  and  his  carrying  it  on,  by  the  revelation  of  the  will 
of  God  ;  so  that  without  either  difficulty  or  straining,  the  sense  and 
intendment  of  the  Holy  Ghost  falls  in  clearly  in  the  words. 

3.  It  is  evident  that'  the  word  neither  may  nor  ought  to  be  trans 
lated  according  to  their  desire  ;  for, — 

(1.)  It  being  so  often  said  before  that  the  Word  was,  the  word  is 
still  jji/,  and  not  sysvero.  " In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the 
Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God ;" — the  same  was.  "  He 
was  in  the  world,  he  was  the  light ;" — still  the  same  word.  So  that 
if  no  more  were  intended  but  what  was  before  expressed,  the  terms 
would  not  be  changed  without  exceedingly  obscuring  the  sense ;  and 
therefore  lylvgro  must  signify  somewhat  more  than  %v. 

(2.)  The  word  lymro,  applied  to  other  things  in  this  very  place,  de 
notes  their  making  or  their  original;  which  our  catechists  did  not 
question  in  the  consideration  of  the  places  where  it  is  so  used :  as 
verse  3,  "  All  things  were  made  by  him,  and  without  him  was 
not  any  thing  made  that  was  made;"  and  verse  10,  "  The  world  was 
made  by  him." 

(3.)  This  phrase  is  expounded  accordingly  in  other  places:  as  Bom. 
1.  3,  Toy  ytvofitvtjv  ix  ffyrepfAurog  Aa£/5  xara  ffdpxa, — "  Made  of  the  seed 
of  David  according  to  the  flesh ;"  and  Gal.  iv.  4,  TSVOJAIVOV  ex  ywaixog, 
"  Made  of  a  woman."  But  they  think  to  salve  all  by  the  ensuing 
exposition  of  these  words  : — 

Q.  How  is  that  to  be  understood,  "  The  Word  was  flesh?" 

A.  That  he  by  whom  God  perfectly  revealed  all  his  will,  who  is  therefore  called 
"  Sermo"  by  John,  was  a  man,  subject  to  all  miseries  and  afflictions,  and  lastly  to 
death  itself:  for  the  Scripture  useth  the  word  "  flesh"  in  that  sense,  as  is  clear  from 
those  places  where  God  speaks.  "  My  Spirit  shall  not  always  contend  with  man, 
seeing  he  is  flesh,"  Gen.  vi.  3;  and  Peter,  "All  flesh  is  grass,"  1  Pet.  i.  24. l 

This  is  the  upshot  of  our  catechists'  exposition  of  this  first  chapter 
of  John,  as  to  the  person  of  Christ ;  which  is, — 

1.  Absurd,  upon  their  own  suppositions;  for  the  testimonies  pro 
duced  affirm  every  man  to  be  flesh,  so  that  to  say  he  is  a  man  is  to 
say  he  is  flesh,  and  to  say  that  man  was  flesh  is  to  say  that  a  man 
was  a  man,  inasmuch  as  every  man  is  flesh. 

2.  False,  and  no  way  fitted  to  the  intendment  of  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
for  he  was  made  flesh  antecedently  to  his  dwelling  amongst  us ; 
which  immediately  follows  in  the  text.     Nor  is  his  being  made  flesh 

1  "Qua  ratione  illud  intelligendum  est,  Sermonem  carnem  fuisse ? — Quod  is  per  quern 
Deus  voluntatem  suam  omnem  perfecte  exposuisset,  et  propterea  a  Johanne  Sermo 
appellatus  fuisset,  homo  fuerit,  omnibus  miseriis  et  afflictionibus,  ac  morti  denique 
subjectus  :  etenim  vocem  caro  eo  sensu  Scriptura  usurpat,  ut  ex  iis  locis  perspicuum, 
est,  ubi  Dcus  loquitur,  Non  contendet  Spiritus  meus  cum  homine  in  (Sternum,  quia  caro  estt 
Gen.  vi.  3;  et  Fetrus,  Omnis  caro  utfoenum,  1  Pet.  i.  24." 

228  ;     VINDICI^E  EVANGELIC^;. 

suited  to  any  thing  in  this  place  but  his  conversation  with  men; 
which  answers  his  incarnation,  not  his  mediation  ;  neither  is  this  ex 
position  confirmed  by  any  instance  from  the  Scriptures  of  the  like 
expression  used  concerning  Jesus  Christ,  as  that  we  urge  is,  Rom. 
i.  3,  Gal.  iv.  4,  and  other  places.  The  place  evidently  affirms  the 
Word  to  be  made  something  that  he  was  not  before,  when  he  was  the 
Word  only,  and  cannot  be  affirmed  of  him  as  he  was  man,  in 
which  sense  he  was  always  obnoxious  to  miseries  and  death. 

And  this  is  all  which  our  catechists,  in  several  places,  have  thought 
meet  to  insist  on,  by  way  of  exception  or  opposition  to  our  undeniable 
and  manifest  testimonies  from  this  first  chapter  of  John  unto  the 
great  and  sacred  truth  contended  for ;  which  I  have  at  large  insisted 
on,  that  the  reader  from  this  one  instance  may  take  a  taste  of  their 
dealing  in  the  rest,  and  of  the  desperateness  of  the  cause  which  they 
have  undertaken,  driving  them  to  such  desperate  shifts  for  the  main 
tenance  and  protection  of  it.  In  the  residue  I  shall  be  more  brief. 

John  vi.  62  is  in  the  next  place  taken  into  consideration.  The 
words  are,  "  What  and  if  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  man  ascend  up 
where  he  was  before  ?"  What  we  intend  from  hence,  and  the  force 
of  the  argument  from  this  testimony  insisted  on,  will  the  better 
appear  if  we  add  unto  it  those  other  places  of  Scripture  wherein  the 
same  thing  is  more  expressly  and  emphatically  affirmed ;  which  our 
catechists  cast  (or  some  of  them)  quite  into  another  place,  on  pre 
tence  of  the  method  wherein  they  proceed,  but  indeed  to  take  off  from 
the  evidence  of  the  testimony,  as  they  deal  with  what  we  plead  from 
John  i.  The  places  I  intend  are  : — 

John  iii.  13,  "And  no  man  hath  ascended  up  to  heaven,  but  he 
that  came  down  from  heaven,  even  the  Son  of  man  which  is  in 
heaven."  Verse  31,  ""He  thatcometh  from  above  is  above  all :  he 
that  cometh  from  heaven  is  above  all."  Chap.  viii.  23,  "  Ye  are  from 
beneath ;  I  am  from  above/'  Chap.  xvi.  28,  "  I  came  forth  from 
the  Father,  and  am  come  into  the  world :  again,  I  leave  the  world, 
and  go  to  the  Father." 

Hence  we  thus  argue : — He  that  was  in  heaven  before  he  was  on 
the  earth,  and  who  was  also  in  heaven  whilst  he  was  on  the  earth,  is 
the  eternal  God ;  but  this  doth  Jesus  Christ  abundantly  confirm  con 
cerning  himself :  therefore  he  is  the  eternal  God,  blessed  for  ever. 

In  answer  to  the  first  place  our  catechists  thus  proceed  : — - 

Q.  What  answerest  thou  to  the  second  testimony,  John  vi.  62  ? 

A.  Neither  is  here  any  mention  made  expressly  of  pre-eternity  ;  for  in  this  place 
the  Scripture  witnesseth  that  the  Son  of  man,  that  is  a  man,  was  in  heaven,  who 
without  all  controversy  was  not  eternally  pre-existent. l 

1  "Ad  secundum  autem  quid  respondes  ? — Neque  hie  ullam  prse-seternitatis  men- 
tioncm  factam  expresse ;  nam  hoc  in  loco  Filium  hominis,  id  est,  homincm  in  ccelis 
fuisse  testatur  Scriptura,  quern  citra  ullam  controversiam  prae-geternum  non  extitisse 
certum  est." 


So  they.  1.  It  is  expressly  affirmed  that  Christ  was  in  heaven  be 
fore  his  coming  into  the  world.  And  if  we  evince  his  pre-existence 
to  his  incarnation  against  the  Socinians,  the  task  will  not  be  difficult 
to  prove  that  pre-existence  to  be  in  an  eternal  divine  nature  against 
the  Arians.  It  is  sufficient,  as  to  our  intendment  in  producing  this 
testimony,  that  it  is  affirmed  that  Christ  %v  vporspov  in  heaven  before 
his  coming  forth  into  the  world ;  in  what  nature  we  elsewhere  prove. 

2.  It  is  said,  indeed,  that  the  Son  of  man  was  in  heaven ;  which 
makes  it  evident  that  he  who  is  the  Son  of  man  hath  another  nature 
besides  that  wherein  he  is  the  Son  of  man,  wherein  he  is  the  Son  of 
God.     And  by  affirming  that  the  Son  of  man  was  in  heaven  before, 
it  doth  no  more  assert  that  he  was  eternal  and  in  heaven  in  that 
nature  wherein  he  is  the  Son  of  man,  than  the  affirmation  that  God 
redeemed  his  church  with  his  own  blood  doth  prove  that  the  blood 
shed  was  the  blood  of  the  divine  nature.     Both  the  affirmations  are 
concerning  the  person  of  Christ.     As  he  who  was  God  shed  his  blood 
as  he  was  man,  so  he  who  was  man  was  eternal  and. in  heaven  as 
he  was  God.     So  that  the  answer  doth  merely  beg  the  thing  in 
question,  namely,  that  Christ  is  not  God  and  man  in  one  person. 

3.  The  insinuation  here  of  Christ's  being  in  heaven  as  man  before 
his  ascension  mentioned  in  Scripture,  shall  be  considered  when  we 
come  to  the  proposal  made  of  that  figment  by  Mr.  B.,  in  his  chapter 
of  the  prophetical  office  of  Christ.     In  answer  to  the  other  testimonies 
cited,  they  thus  proceed,  towards  the  latter  end  of  their  chapter 
concerning  the  person  of  Christ : — 

Q.   What  answerest  thou  to  John  iii.  13,  x.  36,  xvi.  28,  xvii.  18  ? 

A.  That  a  divine  nature  is  not  here  proved  appeareth,  because  the  words  of  the 
first  testimony.  "  He  came  down  from  heaven,"  may  be  received  figuratively:  as 
James  i.  17,  "  Every  good  and  every  perfect  gift  is  from  above,  and  comethdown 
from  the  Father  of  lights ;"  and  Rev.  xxi.  2,  10,  "  I  saw  the  holy  city  Jerusalem 
coming  down  from  God."  But  if  the  words  be  taken  properly,  which  we  willingly 
admit,  it  appears  that  they  are  not  spoken  of  any  other  than  the  Son  of  man,  who, 
seeing  he  hath  necessarily  a  human  person,  cannot  by  nature  be  God.  More 
over,  for  what  the  Scripture  witnesseth  of  Christ,  that  the  Father  sent  him  into 
the  world,  the  same  we  read  of  the  apostles  of  Christ  in  the  same  words  above 
alleged;  as  John  xvii.  18,  "  As  thou  hast  sent  me  into  the  world,  I  have  sent 
them  into  the  world."  And  these  words,  "  Christ  came  forth  from  the  Father," 
are  of  the  same  import  with  "  He  descended  from  heaven."  "  To  come  into  the 
world"  is  of  that  sort  as  the  Scripture  manifests  to  have  been  after  the  nativity  of 
Christ,  John  xviii.  37,  where  the  Lord  himself  says,  "  For  this  I  am  born,  and 
come  into  the  world,  that  I  might  bear  witness  to  the  truth  ;"  and  1  John  iv.  1, 
it  is  written,  "  Many  false  prophets  are  gone  forth  into  the  world."  Wherefore 
from  this  kind  of  speaking  a  divine  nature  in  Christ  cannot  be  proved ;  but  in  all 
these  speeches  only  what  was  the  divine  original  of  the  office  of  Christ  is  described.1 

1  "  Ubi  vero  Script ura  de  Christo  ait,  quod  de  coclo  descendit,  a  Patre  exivit,  et  in 
munditm  venit,  Job.  iii.  13,  x.  36,  xvi.  28,  xvii.  18,  quid  ad  hsec  respondes  ? — Ex  iis 
uon  probari  divinam  naturam  hinc  apparere,  quod  primi  testimonii  verba,  Descendit  de 
ccelo,  possint  figurate  accipi ;  quemadmodum,  Jac.  i.  17,  Omne  datum  bonum  et  donum 


1.  That  these  expressions  are  merely  figuratively  to  be  expounded 
they  dare  not  assert ;  nor  is  there  any  colour  given  that  they  may 
be  so  received  from  the  instances  produced  from  James  i.  17  and 
Rev.  xxi.  2,  10;  for  there  is  only  mention  made  of  descending  or 
coming  down,  which  word  we  insist  not  on  by  itself,  but  as  it  is  con 
joined  with  the  testimony  of  his  being  in  heaven  before  his  descend 
ing,  which  takes  off  all  pretence  of  a  parity  of  reason  in  the  places 

2.  All  that  follows  is  a  perfect  begging  of  the  thing  in  question. 
Because  Christ  is  the  Son  of  man,  it  follows  that  he  is  a  true  man, 
but  not  that  he  hath  the  personality  of  a  man,  or  a  human  person 
ality.     Personality  belongs  not  to  the  essence  but  to  the  existence  of 
a  man.      So  that  here  they  do  but  repeat  their  own  hypothesis  in 
answer  to  an  express  testimony  of  Scripture  against  it.     Their  con 
fession  of  the  proper  use  of  the  word  is  but  to  give  colour  to  the  fig 
ment  formerly  intimated ;  which  shall  be  in  due  place  (God  assisting) 

3.  They  utterly  omit  and  take  no  notice  of  that  place  where  Christ 
says  he  so  came  from  heaven  as  that  he  was  still  in  heaven;  nor  do 
they  mention  any  thing  of  that  which  we  lay  greatest  weight  on, — of 
his  affirming  that  he  was  in  heaven  before, — but  merely  insist  on  the 
word  "descending"  or  "  coming  down;"  and  yet  they  can  no  other 
way  deal  with  that  neither  but  by  begging  the  thing  in  question. 

4.  We  do  not  argue  merely  from  the  words  of  Christ's  being  sent 
into  the  world,  but  in  this  conjunct  consideration  that  he  was  so  sent 
into  the  world  as  that  he  was  in  heaven  before,  and  so  came  forth 
from  the  Father,  and  was  with  him  in  heaven  before  his  coming 
forth ;  and  this  our  catechists  thought  good  to  oversee. 

5.  The  difference  of  Christ's  being  sent  into  the  world,  and  the 
apostles  by  him,  which  they  parallel  as  to  the  purpose  in  hand,  lies  in 
this,  that  Christ  was  so  sent  of  the  Father  that  he  came  forth  from 
the  Father,  and  was  with  him  in  heaven  before  his  sending;  which 
proves  him  to  have  another  nature  than  that  wherein  he  was  sent. 
The  similitude  alleged  consists  quite  in  other  things.     Neither, — 

6.  Doth  the  scripture  in  John  xviii.  37  testify  that  Christ's  send- 

perfectum  desursum  est,  descendens  a  Patre  luminum;  et  Apoc.  xxi.  2,  10,  Vidi  civitatem 
sanctam,  Ilierusalem  novam,  descendentem  de  codo  a  Deo,  etc.  Quod  si  proprie  accipi  de- 
beant,  quod  nos  perlibenter  admittimus,  apparet  non  de  alio  ilia  dicta  quam  de  Filio 
hominis,  qui  cum  personam  humanam  necessario  habeat,  Deus  natura  esse  non  potest. 
Porro,  quod  Scriptura  testatur  de  Christo,  quod  Pater  eum  miserit  in  mundum,  idem 
de  apostolis  Christi  legimus  in  iisdem  verbis  citatis  superius :  Qmmadmodum  me  misisti 
in  mundum,  et  ego  mist  eos  in  mundum,  Job.  xvii.  18.  Ea  vero  verba,  quod  Christus  a 
Patre  exierit,  idem  valent,  quod  de  ccelo  descendit.  Venire  vero  in  mundum,  id  ejusmodi 
est,  quod  Scriptura  post  nativitatem  Christi  extitisse  ostendit,  Job.,  xviii.  37,  ubi  ipse 
Dominus  ait,  Ego  in  hoc  natus  sum,  et  in  mundum  veni,  ut  testimonium  perhibeam  veritati; 
et  1  Job.  iv.  1,  scriptum  est,  Multos  falsos  prophetas  exiisse  in  mundum.  Quare  ex  ejus 
modi  loquendi  modis  natura  divina  in  Christo  probari  non  potest.  In  omnibus  vero 
bis  locutionibus,  quam  divinum  muneris  Christi  principium  fuerit,  duntaxat  dcscribitur. " 


ingr  into  the  world  was  after  his  nativity,  but  only  that  the  end  of 
Khemboth  was  to  "bear  witness  to  the  truth."  And,  indeed,  "I  was 
born,"  and  "  came  into  the  world,"  are  but  the  same,  the  one  being 
exegetical  of  the  other.  But  his  being  born  and  his  coming  into  the 
world  are,  in  the  testimonies  cited,  plainly  asserted  in  reference  to  an 
existence  that  he  had  in  heaven  before.  And  thus  as  our  argument 
is  not  at  all  touched  in  this  answer,  so  is  their  answer  closed  as  it 
began,  with  the  begging  of  that  which  is  not  only  questioned  but 
sufficiently  disproved,— namely,  that  Christ  was,  in  his  human  nature, 
taken  up  into  heaven  and  instructed  in  the  will  of  God  before  his 
entrance  upon  his  prophetical  office. 

And  this  is  the  whole  of  what  they  have  to  except  against  this 
evident  testimony  of  the  divine  nature  of  Christ.  He  was  in  heaven 
with  the  Father  before  he  came  forth  from  the  Father,  or  was  sent 
into  the  world,  and,  aXXo  xai  «XXo,  was  in  heaven  when  he  was 
on  the  earth,  and  at  his  ascension  returned  thither  where  he  was  be 
fore.  And  so  much  for  the  vindication  of  this  second  testimony. 

John  vi.  62  is  the  second  place  I  can  meet  with,  in  all  the  annota 
tions  of  Grotius,  wherein  he  seems  to  assert  the  union  of  the  human 
nature  of  Christ  with  the  eternal  Word,— if  he  do  so.  It  is  not  with 
the  man  that  I  have  any  difference,  nor  do  I  impose  any  thing  on 
him  for  his  judgment ;  I  only  take  liberty,  having  so  great  cause 
given,  to  discuss  his  Annotations. 

There  remains  one  more  of  the  first  rank,  as  they  are  sorted  by  our 
catechists,  for  the  proof  of  the  eternity  of  Christ,  which  is  also  from 
John,  chap.  viii.  58,  "Before  Abraham  was,  I  am,"  that  they  insist  on:— 
In  this  place  the  pre-eternity  of  Christ  is  not  only  not  expressed,  seeing  it  is  one 
thing  to  be  before  Abraham,  and  another  to  be  eternal,  but  also,  it  is  not  so  much 
as  expressed  that  he  was  before  the  Virgin  Mary.  For  these  words  may  otherwise 
be  read,  namely,  «  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  Before  Abraham  was  made,  I 
am ;"  as  it  appears  from  those  places  in  the  same  evangelist  where  the  like  Greek 
phrase  is  used,  chap.  xiii.  19,  xiv.  29. 

Q.   What  then  would  be  the  sense  of  this  reading? 

A.  Very  eminent.  For  Christ  admonisheth  the  Jews,  who  would  have  ensnared 
him  in  his  speech,  that  whilst  they  had  time,  they  should  believe  in  him  as  the  light 
of  the  world,  before  the  divine  grace  which  Christ  offered  to  them  should  be  taken 
from  them  and  be  carried  to  the  Gentiles.  But  that  these  words,  "  I  am,"  are  to 
be  supplied  in  that  manner  as  if  himself  had  added  to  them, "  I  am  the  light  of  the 
world,"  appears,  because  that  in  the  beginning  of  his  speech,  verse  12,  he  had  twice 
in  these  words,  "  I  am,"  called  himself  the  light  of  the  world,  verses  24,  28.  And 
that  these  words,  "  Before  Abraham  be,"  do  signify  that  which  we  have  said,  may 
be  perceived  from  the  notation  of  that  word  "  Abraham  ;"  for  it  is  evident  that 
"  Abraham"  denotes  "  the  father  of  many  nations."  Seeing,  then,  that  Abram  was 
not  made  Abraham  before  the  grace  of  God  manifested  in  Christ  redounded  to 
many  nations,  for  Abraham  before  was  the  father  of  one  nation  only,  it  appears 
that  that  is  the  very  sense  of  the  words  which  we  have  given.1 

"  In  hoc  loco  non  solum  non  exprimitur  prae-asternitas  Christi,  cum  aliud  sit,  ante 
Abrahamum  fuisse,  aliud,  pras-reternum ;  verum  ne  hoc  quidem  expressum  est,  ipsum 


If  our  adversaries  can  well  quit  themselves  of  tliis  evidence,  I  be 
lieve  they  will  have  no  small  hopes  of  escaping  in  the  whole  trial ; 
and  if  they  meet  with  judges  so  partially  addicted  to  them  and  their 
cause  as  to  accept  of  such  manifest  juggling  and  perverting  of  the 
Scriptures,  I  know  not  what  they  may  not  expect  or  hope  for, 
especially  seeing  how  they  exult  and  triumph  in  this  invention,  as 
may  be  seen  in  the  words  of  Socinus  himself  in  his  answer  to  Eras 
mus  Johannes,  p.  67.  For  whereas  Erasmus  says,  "  I  confess  in  my 
whole  life  I  never  met  with  any  interpretation  of  Scripture  more 
wrested,  or  violently  perverting  the  sense  of  it ;"  the  other  replies, 
"  I  hoped  rather  that  thou  wouldst  confess  that  in  thy  whole  life 
thou  hadst  never  heard  an  interpretation  more  acute  and  true  than 
this,  nor  which  did  savour  more  of  somewhat  divine,  or  evidenced 
more  clearly  its  revelation  from  God.  I  truly  have  not  light  conjec 
tures  that  he  who  brought  it  first  to  light  in  our  age  (now  this  was 
he  who  in  this  age  renewed  the  opinion  of  the  original  of  Christ, 
which  I  constantly  defend)"  (that  is,  his  uncle  LaBlius)  "  obtained  it  of 
Christ  by  many  prayers.  This  truly  I  do  affirm,  that  whereas  God 
revealed  many  things  to  that  man  at  that  time  altogether  unknown 
to  others,  yet  there  is  scarce  any  thing  amongst  them  all  that  may 
seem  more  divine  than  this  interpretation."1 

'Of  this  esteem  is  this  interpretation  of  these  words  with  them. 
They  profess  it  to  be  one  of  the  best  and  most  divine  discoveries  that 
ever  was  made  by  them ;  whereto,  for  my  part,  I  freely  assent,  though 

ante  Mariam  Virgincm  fuisse.  Et  enim  ea  verba  aliter  legi  posse  (nimirum  hac  ratione, 
Amen,  amen,  dico  vobis,  Priusquam  Abraham  fiat,  ego  sum)  apparet  ex  iis  locis  apud  eundem 
evangelistam,  ubi  similis  et  eadem  locutio  Grceca  habetur,  cap.  xiii.  19,  Et  modo  dico 
vobis,  priusquam  fiat,  ut  cum  factum  fuerit  credatis;  et  cap.  xiv.  29,  Et  nunc  dixi  vobis  pri 
usquam  fiat,  etc. 

"  Quae  vero  ejus  sententia  forct  lectionis  ? — Admodura  egregia  :  etenim  admonet 
Christus  Judseos,  qui  eum  in  sermone  capere  volebant,  ut  dum  tempus  haberent,  crede- 
rent  ipsum  esse  mundi  lucem,  antequam  divina  gratia,  quam  Christus  iis  offerebat,  ab 
iis  tolleretur,  et  ad  Gentes  transferretur.  Quod  vero  ea  verba,  ego  sum,  sint  ad  eum 
modum  supplenda,  ac  si  ipse  subjecisset  iis,  Ego  sum  lux  mundi,  superius  e  principio 
ejus  orationis,  ver.  12,  constat  et  hinc,  quod  Christus  bis  seipsum  iisdem  verbis,  ego  sum, 
lucem  mundi  vocaverit,  ver.  24,  28.  Ea  vero  verba,  Priusquam  Abraham  fiat,  id  signi- 
ficare  quod  diximus,  e  notatione  nominis  Abraham  deprehendi  potest ;  constat  inter 
omnes  Abrahamum  notare  patrem  multarum  gentium.  Cum  vero  Abram  non  sit  factua 
prius  Abraham,  quam  Dei  gratia,  in  Christo  manifcstata,  in  multas  gentes  redunda- 
ret,  quippe  quod  Abrahamus  unius  tantum  gentis  antea  pater  fuerit,  apparet  senten- 
tiam  horum  verborum,  quam  attulimus,  esse  ipsissimam." 

1  "  Fateor  me  per  omnem  vitam  meam  non  magis  contortam  scripturae  interpreta- 
tionem  audivisse;  ideoque  earn  penitus  improbo." — Eras.  Johan.  "Cum  primum  fa- 
tendi  verbum  in  tuis  verbis  animadverti,  sperabam  te  potius  nullam  in  tua  vita  scrip- 
turse  interpretationem  audivisse,  quas  hac  sit  acutior  aut  verier :  quseque  magis  divinum 
quid  sapiat,  et  a  Deo  ipso  patefactum  fuisse  prae  se  ferat.  Ego  quidem  certe  non  levcs 
conjecturas  habeo,  ilium,  qui  primus  setate  nostra  earn  in  lucem  pcrtulit  (hie  autem  is 
fuit,  qui  primus  quoque  sententiam  de  Christi  origine,  quam  ego  constanter  defendo 
renovavit)  precibus  multis  ab  ipso  Christo  impetrasse.  .Hoc  profecto  affirmare  ausim, 
cum  Deus  illi  viro  permulta,  aliis  prorsus  tune  temporis  incognita,  patefecerit,  vix 
quidquam  inter  ilia  omnia  esse  quod  interpretatione  hac  divinius  videri  queat." — Socin. 
l>isput.  cum  Eras.  Johan.  arg.  4,  p.  67. 


withal  I  believe  it  to  be  as  violent  a  perverting  of  the  Scripture  and 
corrupting  of  the  word  of  God  as  the  world  can  bear  witness  to. 

Let  the  Christian  reader,  without  the  least  prejudicial  thought 
from  the  interpretation  of  this  or  that  man,  consult  the  text  and  con 
text.  The  head  of  the  discourse  which  gives  occasion  to  these  words 
of  Christ  concerning  himself  lies  evidently  and  undeniably  in  verse 
51,  "Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  If  a  man  keep  my  saying,  he 
shall  never  see  death."  Upon  this  the  Jews  rise  up  against  him,  as 
one  that  boasted  of  himself  above  measure,  and  preferred  himself 
before  his  betters:  Verse  52,  "Then  said  the  Jews  unto  him,  Now 
we  know  that  thou  hast  a  devil.  Abraham  is  dead,  and  the  pro 
phets;  and  thou  sayest,  If  a  man  keep  my  saying,  he  shall  never  taste 
of  death;"  and,  verse  53,  "Art  thou  greater  than  our  father  Abra 
ham,  which  is  dead?  and  the  prophets  are  dead:  whom  makest 
thou  thyself?"  Two  things  are  here  charged  on  him  by  the  Jews  : 
First,  in  general,  That  he  preferred,  exalted,  and  honoured  himself. 
Secondly,  in  particular,  That  he  made  himself  better  than  Abraham 
their  father.  To  both  which  charges  Christ  answers  in  order  in  the  fol 
lowing  words.  1.  To  the  first  or  general  charge  of  honouring  himself : 
Verses  54,  55,  "  Jesus  answered,  If  I  honour  myself,  my  honour  is 
nothing:  it  is  my  Father  that  honoureth  me;  of  whom^ye  say,  that 
he  is  your  God.  Ye  have  not  known  him ;  but  I  know  him :  and  if  I 
should  say,  I  know  him  not,  I  shall  be  a  liar  like  unto  you :  but  I 
know  him,  and  keep  his  saying."  His  honour  he  had  from  God,  whom 
they  professed  [to  know,]  but  knew  not.  2.  To  that  of  Abraham  he 
replies,  verse  56,  "Your  father  Abraham  rejoiced  to  see  my  day:  and 
he  saw  it,  and  was  glad ;" — "  Though  Abraham  was  so  truly  great,  and 
the  friend  of  God,  yet  his  great  joy  was  from  his  belief  in  me,  where 
by  he  saw  my  day."  To  this  the  Jews  reply,  labouring  to  convince 
him  of  a  falsehood,  from  the  impossibility  of  the  thing  that  he  had 
asserted,  verse  57,  "  Thou  art  not  yet  fifty  years  old,  and  hast  thou 
seen  Abraham  ?" — "  Abraham  was  dead  so  many  hundi  el  years  before 
thou  wast  born,  how  couldst  thou  see  him,  or  he  thee?"  To  this,  in 
the  last  place,  our  Saviour  replies,  verse  58,  "Verily,  verily,  I  say 
unto  you,  Before  Abraham  was,  I  am."  The  Jews  knowing  that  by 
these  words  he  asserted  his  deity,  and  that  it  was  impossible  on  any 
other  account  to  make  good  that  he,  who  in  their  esteem  was  not 
fifty  years  old  (indeed  but  a  little  above  thirty),  should  be  before 
Abraham,  as  in  a  case  of  blasphemy,  they  take  up  stones  to  stone 
•  him,  verse  59,  as  was  their  perpetual  manner,  to  attempt  to  kill  him 
under  pretence  of  blasphemy,  when  he  asserted  his  deity;  as  John 
v.  18,  "  Therefore  the  Jews  sought  the  more  to  kill  him,  because  he 
said  that  God  was  his  Father,  making  himself  equal  with  God." 

This  naked  and  unprejudicate  view  of  the  text  is  sufficient  to  ob 
viate  all  the  operose  and  sophistical  exceptions  of  our  catechists  so 


that  I  shall  not  need  long  to  insist  upon  them.  That  which  we  have 
asserted  may  be  thus  proposed :  He  who  in  respect  of  his  human 
nature  was  many  hundred  years  after  Abraham,  yet  was  in  another 
respect  existing  before  him;  he  had  an  existence  before  his  birth,  as 
to  his  divine  nature.  Now  this  doth